Updating an old set of by-laws is one of the more satisfying jobs a committee can tackle, tidying up outdated language and bringing everything into line with current practice. But a recent adjudicator’s decision is a good reminder that not every by-law change can be approved the same way, and that getting the voting requirement wrong can put the whole update at risk.
In Blue Meridian [2026] QBCCMCmr 331, a 15-lot scheme decided to replace its entire set of by-laws, including the exclusive use by-laws that give particular owners the right to use parts of the common property, such as courtyards and car parks, for their own benefit. The replacement by-laws were put to owners as a special resolution at the annual general meeting and passed comfortably, nine votes in favour, one against and one abstention.
Two lot owners were unhappy with changes to the wording covering their car park and courtyard. The new car park by-law, for instance, expressly allowed owners to store items in their exclusive use car parks, something the old by-law did not clearly permit. The courtyard by-law also changed the wording describing who was responsible for the body corporate’s usual duties in that area. The owners argued that changes of this kind, which affect what an owner is actually allowed to do with their exclusive use area, needed something stronger than a special resolution.
The Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) draws a distinction that trips people up more often than you might expect. A special resolution needs the support of at least 75 per cent of the votes cast, with no more than 25 per cent against. A resolution without dissent needs exactly what it sounds like: nobody voting against it. Generally, changing a scheme’s by-laws only needs a special resolution. But where a change affects the rights attached to an existing exclusive use area, rather than simply tidying up its wording, the higher bar of a resolution without dissent can apply.
The adjudicator’s preliminary view was that this by-law change did more than tidy up language. Giving owners an express right to store items in their car park space was a genuine change to what they were entitled to do there, not previously available to them under the old wording. On that basis, the adjudicator was satisfied there was a serious question as to whether the special resolution was actually enough, and made an interim order stopping the body corporate from registering the new by-laws until the matter is finally resolved.
If your committee is planning a general refresh of the by-laws, it pays to look closely at any exclusive use provisions before finalising the wording. A like-for-like update, simply restating an existing right in clearer language, will usually only need a special resolution. But if the new wording gives an owner something they did not clearly have before, or takes something away, it is worth checking whether a resolution without dissent is required instead. Getting professional advice before the meeting, rather than after a challenge, avoids the cost and delay of redoing the whole process.
For lot owners, if a proposed by-law change affects your exclusive use area in a way that seems to go beyond a simple rewording, it is worth raising the question at or before the meeting, so the committee can consider whether the right voting threshold is being used.
Enforcement action only works when it is built on solid ground. BCsystems can help committees check that a proposed notice is properly matched to the by-law being relied on before it is sent, so any genuine concern about appearance, safety or amenity is addressed in a way that will actually hold up.
There is nothing wrong with modernising a scheme’s by-laws, and most updates go through without any trouble at all. This case is simply a useful prompt to look a little more closely at exclusive use provisions before the meeting, so the new by-laws stick the first time around.
“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.