When a waterproofing membrane on a deck or roof fails and water starts getting into the lot below, the first question is always: whose membrane is it, and who has to fix it? But there is a harder question that sometimes follows: what happens when the body corporate is responsible for fixing it, but may be able to claim some or all of the cost back from the owner because the owner’s actions contributed to the damage?
A November 2025 case from Townsville works through exactly this scenario, and the outcome highlights a critical obligation that body corporates sometimes overlook, and a costly consequence when they do.
The Reef Reflections [2025] QBCCMCmr 410 (17 November 2025) involves a 5-lot scheme in Townsville. The scheme has been subject to ongoing water ingress disputes since at least 2000. The applicant, owner of Lot 4, had a large sundeck that sat above Lot 3. A waterproof membrane under the deck was meant to protect Lot 3 below. The deck had contained garden beds for at least 20 years.
In late 2024, the owner of Lot 3 again reported water ingress. The applicant had by then removed the gardens and, in April 2025, engaged a contractor to replace the waterproofing on the deck at a cost of around $20,735. The applicant then brought a motion at an extraordinary general meeting seeking reimbursement from the body corporate. The motion was defeated 4 votes to 1.
The other owners argued the gardens on the deck had damaged the membrane, the applicant had acted without consulting the body corporate, only one quote was obtained, and the body corporate should not pay for work it did not commission or approve.
Adjudicator I Rosemann dismissed the application, but not because the body corporate was not responsible for the membrane. In fact, some of the most important parts of the decision went the other way.
On who owns responsibility for the membrane: in a building format plan, the boundary between Lot 4 and Lot 3 runs through the centre of the slab. The upper surface of the slab belongs to Lot 4. But the waterproofing membrane on the slab, which provides protection for the lot below, is the body corporate’s obligation to maintain in good condition. This is a statutory obligation under section 180(2) of the Standard Module (the regulation module governing the scheme).
On the body corporate’s failure to act: the adjudicator found the body corporate had been on notice since at least 2020 that the membrane had deteriorated. It should have acted to repair the membrane at that time. Instead, it did nothing for years. The adjudicator was direct: it was “inappropriate and unreasonable to do nothing.” And it was “disingenuous to complain about how the work was done, when the body corporate failed to pursue the work itself.”
The body corporate’s right to recover costs: even where the body corporate is responsible for maintaining a structural element, it can recover costs from a lot owner if that owner’s actions caused or contributed to the damage. Had the gardens, or inadequate drainage on the deck, been proven to have caused or contributed to the membrane failure, the body corporate could have completed the work itself and then sought reimbursement from the applicant.
Why the application still failed: the problem was causation. Three possible causes were identified, including root damage from plants, normal deterioration of a 32-year-old membrane, and inadequate drainage falls on the deck. The adjudicator could not determine from the evidence which of these caused the failure, or in what proportion. The applicant bore the burden of proving the body corporate was responsible for the cost, and with the membrane already replaced, there was no scope for further investigation. Without that evidence, it was not unreasonable for the other owners to vote against the reimbursement motion.
Importantly, the adjudicator confirmed that replacing the membrane does not shift long-term maintenance responsibility to the applicant. The body corporate remains responsible for maintaining the new membrane going forward. Liability for specific repair costs arising from a particular cause does not change the underlying obligation to maintain.
For lot owners with decks or garden areas above other lots: if you notice the membrane in those areas is aging or showing signs of deterioration, raise it with the body corporate in writing sooner rather than later. The body corporate is responsible for maintaining it, and the longer it is left, the harder it is to establish what caused the failure when things finally go wrong.
Do not undertake the waterproofing works yourself before giving the body corporate the opportunity to do them. If you act unilaterally without consultation or proper quotes, you take on the risk that you cannot later prove what you need to prove to get reimbursed.
For committees: this case is a reminder that the obligation to maintain waterproofing membranes is proactive. If your scheme has known issues with aging membranes, particularly on decks or roofs above lower lots, the committee should be seeking engineering advice and preparing a scope of works, not waiting for the next call from a wet lot owner. The body corporate retains its right to recover costs from an owner if their actions caused the damage, but it must still carry out the work in the first place.
BCsystems can assist committees with maintenance planning, including identifying when specialist inspection of membranes and waterproofing is warranted. If you are dealing with a water ingress dispute at your scheme, contact BCsystems and we will help work through the maintenance responsibilities and next steps with your committee.
The body corporate’s duty to maintain is not optional, and it does not disappear just because someone else may have contributed to the problem. Act promptly, investigate thoroughly, and document everything. Waiting until the situation deteriorates creates exactly the evidentiary problem that prevented recovery here.
“Act reasonably” is a phrase that appears throughout body corporate law. It’s a legal standard that applies to almost every decision a committee makes – enforcing by-laws, approving or refusing applications, spending scheme funds, engaging contractors, and resolving disputes between owners.
A contravention notice is the formal step a body corporate takes before it can pursue further enforcement action against an owner or occupier over an alleged by-law breach. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), it’s a legal prerequisite, not a warning letter, and the requirements around what it must contain and who it must be given to are specific.