Plenty of smaller schemes rely on one generous, hands-on owner who quietly does a lot of the day-to-day upkeep, and it is only natural for owners to want to say thank you. A recent decision is a gentle but important reminder that once that kind of arrangement becomes a regular, ongoing thing, it may need to be formalised properly, no matter how well-intentioned everyone involved is.
In Brockwell Gardens [2026] QBCCMCmr 312, (click here to read decision) a committee member had, for well over a decade, taken care of a long list of maintenance and caretaking-type tasks around the scheme, without ever holding a formal contract or being paid an hourly wage. Each year, the annual general meeting simply approved an “ex gratia” thank you payment in recognition of the work, this year proposed at $19,800. A concerned owner queried the legal basis for the payment and submitted an alternative motion asking the committee to first explain and document the arrangement before any further payment was approved. When the committee listed the two motions separately, rather than together as alternatives on the same issue, the owner sought an interim order pausing both until the matter could be properly resolved.
The adjudicator was sympathetic to the value the volunteer committee member had clearly provided over the years, keeping the scheme’s costs down and the property well looked after. But the legislation draws a clear line: someone engaged to supply ongoing services, such as caretaking, for a period of a year or more, other than as an employee, is a “service contractor,” and service contractors must be formally engaged in writing, following a proper process, including committee eligibility rules and a documented agreement setting out the term and payment basis. Simply calling a recurring payment a “gift” does not change what it really is in substance, particularly where it has been paid, in a similar way, year after year, for the same ongoing work.
On a preliminary view, the adjudicator considered the longstanding arrangement did, in substance, look like an unregistered service contractor engagement, meaning the proper legal requirements had likely not been followed. The adjudicator put the payment on hold pending a full hearing, and also flagged, separately, that the committee’s motion and the concerned owner’s alternative motion should have been grouped together on the agenda as alternative ways of dealing with the same issue, rather than listed as two separate items.
If your scheme has an owner who regularly performs caretaking, maintenance or similar duties in exchange for payment, even if it is described as a gift, honorarium or thank-you payment, it is worth checking whether the arrangement has, in substance, become an ongoing service engagement. If it has, formalising it properly protects everyone: the scheme gets clear, enforceable terms, and the person doing the work gets the security of a proper agreement rather than an annual vote that could, in theory, simply not be renewed.
For committees drafting general meeting agendas, remember that where two motions offer alternative ways of dealing with the same underlying issue, they generally need to be grouped together as a set of same-issue motions, rather than listed separately.
Formalising an informal caretaking arrangement does not need to be complicated, and it protects both the scheme and the person doing the work. BCsystems can help draft a proper service contractor agreement that reflects what is actually happening on the ground, giving everyone the clarity and security a handshake arrangement, however well meant, simply cannot provide.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to reward a generous, hardworking owner. This decision simply points towards a better way to do it, one that protects the scheme, protects that owner, and keeps everyone on solid legal footing.
“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.