$5000 CASH REWARD

Well Randall,

I thought I’d allow you sufficient time to get to the email and also gather all the evident facts to support your claims – this’s only fair.  

On the contrary – I have seen the read receipt from Saturday at 5.59pm that you had received my email, surely this must be of high priority to you and your team. I must say anyone in such a high position in your case being the Chairman of CBC, Duhig and an Ordinary member of Oxford Cambridge,  Canterbury Westminster, and Kensington Sandringham. I’d would’ve expected  such statements to have all supporting info be it a barrage of snippets, extracts, scanned documents and off course email to support and substantiate your statements or allegations shall I say at your beck and call???

Randall no matter how many stories, lies, allegation and half-truths you may you preach to discredit anyone who opposes you and your team, its clearly obvious I am not like the others and I can’t be pushed aside, defamed, rubbish bagged up and thrown out, or made to feel that they must sell up and move out to distance themselves from the unbearable wrath that is imposed by you and your team to maintain firm control of the true hidden agendas….. How is this possible..? I guess what your preach, really is taken as gospel!  I will persevere through this calculated and planned out assassination of my character.

There are a number of issue that you have lied about like the caretaking, the fire rectification, your explanation and reasoning for the increasing levies being 30% each consecutive year, Randall above all you are forgetting that I was around when you and your supporters previously manipulated the system with management agreements to grant Star BMS the caretaking and security contract and so forth… It’s ironic when I look out and around, I can clearly recognise the same patterns occurring now that happened when Star BMS destroyed our beautiful Complex  and now you and your team have  Ausgreenland creating  a case of  Deja Vu . They also have the same Business plan that is the less work you do the more money you all make.

Eagerly awaiting your response

 

Todd Raumer

Owner Oxford and Cambridge

Cathedral Place

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

I WILL PAY  $5000 IN CASH IF  RANDALL EDWARDS

Can produce Evidence, that as he has stated that the” CBC Paid for Security Services”

During the same  period that Plan B Qld was Contracted to provide Caretaking at Cathedral Place . Even after I gave him more proof at the recent DIHUG AGM he again lied to the lot holders present at the Dugih’s AGM on why the  Restricted  Levies are up again  30 % this year

NOW IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO  TELL THE TRUTH  WHERE ‘S ALL THE MONEY GOING

 

I, Todd Raumer offer a reward of $5000.00 in Cash, if Randal Edwards can prove the statements he has made about who the CBC paid for the Security services that  Plan B QLD PTY LTD provided as part of the caretaking contract and maintained to engage the services of Reddawn Security. A truth covered up by the statements of Randall Edwards is that in fact $200,000.00 is being transferred out of BUP provided funds and into an account held by the Chairman of BUP Cambridge and Oxford, Damien Preddy or is it Smith. Randall has stated and it is quoted” that  Plan B Qld Pty Ltd never catered Security Cost within the Caretaking “not only verbally but in the Chairman’s Report on CPM,s website    www.Cathedralplace.com.au

 

Budget for 2014 vs Expenditure

 

The unaudited financial statement for 2013 – 2014 has been completed and it shows that the CBC spent $125,000  more than it budgeted in its two Administration Funds. Most of this represents a failure by the previous committee(who put the budget together for the last AGM) to budget any expenditure on car park operations ($90,000 was spent)  and set too low of a budget ($39,000 short) for legal fees (most of which had already been accrued in the previous year but not yet paid). If you look at the budgets presented by the previous committee to the AGM you can only be confused. It lists no expenditure in 2013 – 2014 for Caretaking, yet the previous Caretaker was being paid $55,000 p/a throughout that year. It also lists no payment during the previous year for security, yet a security firm was being employed. It appears that actual costs were being hidden within the “clearing account” and the residential BUPs were paying for these costs directly. Thus, the financial statement and the proposed budgets were both very misleading.

Kathleen has stated the same in her Emails to the Owners of the Rental Property’s she Manages.

I have asked  Randall several time, why the CBC was paying a separate Company over $200,000 for Security when it was  included in the Plan B Qld Pty Ltd Caretaking Contract, this is when he stated “that the security was always paid for by the CBC and it was never paid for by my Company” & “the security services where never inclusive of Caretaking costs when held by PLAN B QLD PTY LTD” I have sent Randall an Email providing documentation that Plan B provided security services at Cathedral Place as part of my caretaking contract.  The Commissioners ruling also proves that Plan B provided and covered cost for the security services for cathedral Place, but Randel knew that but persisted that the CBC paid for this Service.  Even after  I provided this evidence to you, you continue to state that Plan B did not pay for security services.

This is the link to the Commissioners ruling on the matter Duhig BUP v Plan B Qld   http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgibin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2013/297.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=duhig 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Queensland body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner – Adjudicators Orders
 

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner – Adjudicators Orders >> 2013 >> [2013]

      

Cathedral Place [2013] QBCCMCmr 297 (19 July 2013)

Last Updated: 10 September 2013

REFEREE’S ORDER Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management

CITATION: Cathedral Place [2013] QBCCMCmr 297
PARTIES: The body corporate for  Duhig  (applicant)Cathedral Place Community body corporate (respondent)
PLAN: MCP 106902
JURISDICTION: Section 77(1) of the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld) (Act) applying the Act and the Mixed Use Development Act 1993 (MUD Act).
APPLICATION NO: 0202-2013
DECISION DATE: 19 July 2013
DECISION OF: P Dowling, Referee
CATCHWORDS: BODY CORPORATE – whether the respondent body corporate has entered into an agreement for the provision of amenities or services by it or another person to a parcel comprised in a building units plan; whether the respondent body corporate should enforce the agreement; whether the respondent body corporate should have given notice to a contractor for breaching an agreed code of conduct.ss 27 and 37, Act; ss 167 and 176(c), MUD Act.

 

ORDER MADE: ORDER MADE:                                              

I hereby order that the application is dismissed.

 

REASONS FOR DECISIONION  Introduction

[1] This application by the  Duhig  body corporate seeks orders against the Cathedral Place Community body corporate (CBC). The CBC is established under the MUD Act. The applicant is a member of the CBC (s 167(6), MUD Act).
[2] On 1 August 2012, a caretaking agreement commenced between the applicant and Plan B Qld Pty Ltd (Plan B). A caretaking agreement between the CBC and Plan B also commenced on 1 August 2012 (the Agreement). The applicant states schedule 2 of the Agreement requires Plan B (amongst other things) to: monitor the observance of the by-laws and rules by proprietors and occupiers (including their guests, licensees and invitees) (sch 2, item 1.3); supervise monitoring general security of Cathedral Place (sch 2, items 1.10 and 2.2(g)); and supervise the removal of all rubbish and waste material (sch 2, item 1.22).
[3] At an extraordinary general meeting dated 18 February 2013, the applicant terminated its agreement with Plan B. At its meeting of the same date, the applicant’s committee engaged Paul and Bernadette Ellis to provide temporary caretaking services (the temporary caretaker).
[4] The applicant states that, at the CBC committee meeting dated 19 February (February meeting), the applicant’s representative requested that the Agreement be enforced and that the applicant be provided with security on the same basis as the other buildings. The applicant submits the committee voted not to enforce the Agreement in relation to the applicant which disadvantages the applicant and is discriminatory.
[5] On 28 February, the applicant made this application seeking an interim order that pending final determination of the application, the CBC enforce the Agreement to provide rubbish bin collection for  Duhig  and to monitor observance of the by-laws and monitor general security for Cathedral Place, including  Duhig  and proprietors. On 15 March, I dismissed the interim order application.
[6] The applicant argues Plan B is not performing the contracted duties and the CBC executive committee will not enforce the Agreement. The applicant seeks the following orders:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>That the CBC be instructed to enforce the Agreement to provide rubbish bin collection for all of Cathedral Place without discrimination between buildings, and in particular, without discrimination towards the applicant.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>That the CBC enforce the Agreement to provide security for the entire complex, including for the applicant’s property and proprietors without discrimination between buildings, and in particular, without discrimination towards the applicant.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>That any reasonable costs incurred by the applicant for the provision of security services between the date of the termination of its contract with Plan B and the date of the resumption of the security services required under the Agreement be paid to the applicant by the CBC.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>That the CBC give notice to Plan B for breach of the ‘Code of conduct for body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors’.

Jurisdiction and procedural matters

[7] After making the interim order, I invited submissions from the CBC committee and the committees for the other five subsidiary bodies corporate (s 73(1)(f), Act). Submissions were made by the CBC committee and the committees for Oxford & Cambridge and Notre Dame bodies corporate[1]. Douglas Jasch, an ordinary member of the committee for the applicant, replied to submissions.
[8] The applicant’s complaint primarily relates to enforcing the Agreement. The CBC has concerns about jurisdiction stating the applicant is seeking an order about the interpretation of, and the duties of, Plan B under the Agreement and the performance of the Plan B’s duties under the Agreement. It argues a referee does not have jurisdiction to interpret and make an order in relation to the terms of the Agreement or the performance of Plan B’s duties. The CBC states that pursuant to section 201ZL of the MUD Act, QCAT has jurisdiction about a claimed or anticipated contractual matter regarding the engagement of a caretaking service contractor.
[9] In and of itself, a complaint about enforcing the Agreement is a matter for which a referee has jurisdiction[2]. The applicant asked the CBC to enforce the Agreement at the February meeting. The applicant refers to provisions such as sections 188A and 189 of the MUD Act. In my view, the dispute relates to the operation of the MUD Act or the rights and obligations of persons under the MUD Act. It may be dealt with under the dispute resolution provisions of the Act (s 214A(1), MUD Act). In these circumstances, the applicant’s complaint may be determined under section 77(1) of the Act.

Interim order

[10] At paragraphs 11 to 24 of the interim order, I stated:

Legislated powers and duties

[11] The CBC has powers and functions conferred on it under the MUD Act or its by-laws (s 167(9)(a), MUD Act). It must do all things that are necessary and reasonable to enforce its by-laws and for the control, management and administration of the community property (s 167(9)(b), MUD Act). The CBC may enter into an agreement for the provision of amenities or services by it or another person to a lot, the proprietor or occupier of a lot, or a parcel comprised in a building units or a group titles plan (s 176(c), MUD Act).

[12] Even though the applicant is a member of the CBC, it was created under section 27(1) of the Act. The applicant has the powers, authorities, duties and functions conferred or imposed on it by or under the Act or the by-laws, and has to do all things reasonably necessary for the enforcement of its by-laws and the control, management and administration of the common property (s 27(3), Act). The applicant shall control, manage and administer the common property for the benefit of the proprietors (s 37(1)(a), Act). The applicant may also enter into an agreement, upon such terms and conditions (including terms for the payment of consideration) as may be agreed upon by the parties thereto, with a proprietor or occupier of a lot for the provision of amenities or services by it to the lot or to the proprietor or occupier thereof (s 37(2)(a), Act). A proprietor shall repair and maintain the person’s lot and keep the lot in a state of good repair, reasonable wear and tear, and damage by fire, storm, tempest or act of God excepted (s 51(2), Act).

Who is responsible for security, by-law compliance and waste disposal?

[13] Given this legislative framework:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The CBC has the power to enforce its by-laws, and to take security measures and dispose of rubbish on land under its control, management and administration.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>A subsidiary body corporate such as the applicant is responsible for the security of the Duhig  parcel, for the enforcement of its by-laws and the disposal of waste from its common property.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The CBC may enter into an agreement for the provision of amenities or services by it or another person to a subsidiary body corporate such as the applicant.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The applicant may enter into an agreement with a proprietor or occupier of a lot for the provision of amenities or services by it to the lot or to the proprietor or occupier.

[14] The applicant has not established that despite legislative provisions of the nature mentioned in paragraphs 11 and 12, the CBC has a legislative power or duty to enforce all by-laws including those in force for the subsidiary parcels, to deal with the security within the subsidiary parcels and to manage rubbish disposal from the subsidiary parcels. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, it would seem the CBC could provide amenities or services to a subsidiary body corporate pursuant to section 176(c) of the MUD Act.

A section 176(c) agreement

[15] In a recent appeal decision (Azzura Greens v Hope Island Resort [2013] QMC), Magistrate Costanzo JJ considered the equivalent section 148(c) of the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987. Magistrate Costanzo JJ concluded (at paragraph 69) the section permits a principal body corporate (such as the CBC) to enter into a contract for the provision of services to proprietors in a subsidiary body corporate (such as the applicant) without the subsidiary body corporate being a party to the agreement with the service provider. The Magistrate did not disagree with the referee’s conclusion that each subsidiary body corporate would be liable to contribute to the contract costs even if a subsidiary body corporate refused to accept the contracted services (see paragraphs 54 and 55).

[16] The applicant does not specifically claim or establish that the Agreement was made under section 176(c) of the MUD Act. The executive committee states the Agreement relates to the provision of caretaking services on the CBC’s common property. The executive committee would seem to argue the Agreement is not a section 176(c) agreement.

The Agreement

[17] This is a significant consideration. The applicant refers generally to duties stated in the Agreement. It would seem the applicant considers the Agreement in part relates to the provision of services to the  Duhig  parcel and/or proprietors of lots in the  Duhig  parcel. The applicant has not however established the legal basis on which the Agreement obligates Plan B to perform the specified duties on the  Duhig  parcel or for the proprietors and occupiers of lots in the  Duhig  parcel.

[18] The applicant suggests the security of the entire complex is threatened. However, the applicant has not demonstrated there is a security issue for which Plan B is responsible under the Agreement, the CBC has knowledge of the issue and the CBC will not enforce the Agreement. There is nothing to suggest the applicant is concerned about the performance of specific duties by Plan B on CBC common property.

[19] The executive committee submits there has not been an agreement entered into between the CBC and the applicant, and that such an agreement is needed if the applicant wants the CBC to conduct caretaking services on the applicant’s common property. I agree. The applicant has not made any submissions about the existence or otherwise of such an agreement that is relevant to the interim order request.

[20] The applicant submits the executive committee has made a decision that alters its rights, privileges or obligations. The applicant has not however established its rights, privileges or obligations under the Agreement. It is not apparent that Plan B must, in the circumstances, perform duties on the  Duhig parcel and the CBC is obliged to ensure the Agreement is enforced if Plan B does not perform the work.

Other considerations

[21] The applicant submits Plan B performs the duties for other subsidiary bodies corporate and collects rubbish bins from other buildings. However, in the absence of a legal basis for the applicant’s claim, I am not persuaded this reasoning warrants an interim order in the terms sought. Neither does the suggestion that a CBC contractor or employee has, in the past, performed the duties for the applicant and the  Duhig .

[22] The applicant refers to issues relating to the executive committee deciding not to enforce the Agreement. For the above reasons, I am not persuaded section 189 of the MUD Act is relevant. Neither am I satisfied from submissions that the conflict of interest provisions on section 188A of the MUD Act are a relevant consideration. I am not convinced the applicant has raised an issue to be determined with respect to the claimed 19 February 2013 executive committee decision that justifies making the requested interim order.

[23] The applicant explains the urgency for the interim request. However, given that I am not persuaded that Plan B is obliged to perform the work referred to by the applicant on the  Duhig  parcel, I do not consider the CBC can be required to enforce the Agreement simply because of the applicant’s concerns about security or health risks on the  Duhig  parcel.

Conclusion

[24] As argued persuasively by the executive committee, the applicant needed to establish that a serious legal question has been raised. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied from the applicant’s submissions that a serious legal question has been raised and that the balance of convenience favours an order in the terms sought. There are not reasonable grounds to make an interim order in the terms sought.

[11] After considering submissions made after making the interim order, I consider my reasons for making the interim order still apply.

Analysis
Rubbish bin collection

[12] The first order sought relates to rubbish bin collection.
[13] The applicant primarily relies on a claimed past practice of the CBC always removing rubbish on behalf of its members. The applicant submits the CBC has always taken on this responsibility and paid for these services through its caretaking contracts or employees. The applicant understands Plan B provides a rubbish removal service to Cathedral Village even though the Village does not have a contract with Plan B. The applicant states this appears to suggest the collection of rubbish bins by the CBC contracted agent continues to be the norm.
[14] The CBC submits it is not clear what is required of the CBC to enforce the Agreement. It states the applicant and the CBC have not entered into any agreement that requires the CBC to be responsible for the provision of any amenities or services on the applicant’s common property. The CBC submits the applicant has not stated why it cannot obtain its own appropriate vehicle and even if Plan B did perform specific services for the applicant it does not mean it is obliged to continue particularly when the applicant terminated its caretaking agreement.
[15] Importantly, the CBC submits even though the CBC can enter into a section 176(c) MUD Act agreement on behalf of the applicant without its agreement, the CBC did not enter into the Agreement as a section 176(c) MUD Act agreement on behalf of the applicant. It correctly states an agreement is needed if the applicant wants the CBC to conduct caretaking services on the applicant’s common property and there has not been an agreement entered into. The CBC submits it has not contracted Plan B to perform caretaking duties on the applicant’s common property so the CBC cannot force the caretaker to collect the applicant’s rubbish bins as it is beyond the CBC’s jurisdiction.
[16] Mr Jasch submits[3] in reply the Agreement states ‘common property’ includes the common property of the subsidiary bodies corporate which includes  Duhig , and it is on this basis that the applicant seeks the CBC enforce the Agreement for the provision of rubbish services. He adds that given Azzura Greens, there is not an obligation for there to be an existing agreement between the CBC and the applicant. Mr Jasch submits that even if there is not a contractual or legal relationship, the CBC has collected the rubbish for 15 years without a written contract and the lack of a written contract does not mean there are not legally binding requirements between the parties.
[17] I am persuaded to the view of the CBC on the question of whether the Agreement is made under section 176(c) of the MUD Act. I disagree with Mr Jasch with respect to Azzura Greens. I do not consider a question with respect to the definition of common property in the Agreement is, in and of itself, enough to establish Plan B has a contractual obligation with respect to rubbish collection from the  Duhig  parcel which can be enforced by the CBC.
[18] Any agreement made pursuant to section 176(c) between the CBC and Plan B would not empower the CBC to control, manage and administer common property within a subsidiary parcel such as  Duhig . In Humphries v Proprietors Surfers Palms North Group Titles Plan 1955[1994] HCA 21[1994] 179 CLR 597, Brennan and Toohey JJ stated (at paragraph 14), “The principle, as Lord Selborne stated it in Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Riche ((12) (1875) LR 7 HL 653 at 693.), is that – “a statutory corporation, created by Act of Parliament for a particular purpose, is limited, as to all its powers, by the purposes of its incorporation as defined in that Act”.
[19] I am not aware of, and have not been referred to a provision of the MUD Act which would provide a power for the CBC to control, manage and administer common property within a subsidiary parcel such as  Duhig  without agreement between the CBC and  Duhig . Therefore, even if the Agreement was made pursuant to section 176(c) and it contained a provision about rubbish bin collection, the provision could not be enforced by the CBC without agreement with the  Duhig  body corporate. There is nothing in submissions suggesting a written agreement exists. Given the legislative framework, I do not consider an argument with respect to past practices is a basis for making an order in the terms sought.
[20] For these reasons, the order sought is dismissed.

The provision of security

[21] The second order sought relates to the provision of security.
[22] The applicant states:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Security for the complex cannot be easily divided because all buildings are attached and share a single outer perimeter.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>By-law breaches can affect occupiers who are not in the same building and a single approach is the most beneficial to proprietors.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The CBC has always provided a single approach to security as indicated by schedule 2, items 1.3 and 1.10 of the Agreement. The applicant submits item 1.3 refers to subsidiary bodies corporate and does not exclude a building that may not have continued its contract with Plan B. The applicant states item 1.10 encapsulates the Cathedral place property, not some buildings to the exclusion of others.

[23] The CBC submits:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The order sought is vague and impossible for the CBC to comply with. It is not clear what is required of the CBC to enforce the Agreement. It is not clear what encompasses a duty to “monitor general security”.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The applicant and the CBC have not entered into any agreement that requires the CBC to be responsible for the provision of any amenities or services on the applicant’s common property.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Even if the caretaker did perform security services for the applicant it does not mean it is obliged to continue particularly when the applicant terminated the caretaking agreement.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>It has not contracted Plan B to perform caretaking duties on the applicant’s common property so the CBC cannot force the caretaker to monitor security on the applicant’s common property as it is beyond the CBC’s jurisdiction.

[24] For the reasons stated in the interim order and in paragraphs 17 to 19 above, and after giving consideration to submissions, I am not persuaded: Plan B is not performing security duties stated in the Agreement to the extent permitted by the MUD Act; that the CBC is on notice of the duties Plan B is not performing; and that the CBC has refused to enforce the Agreement. For these reasons, the order sought is dismissed.
[25] The third order sought is based on the second order sought being made. The applicant submits:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The security of the entire complex is threatened if one building operates without security.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>It has employed part-time security for those times that it is most likely to see disruptions or possible breaches of entry. This means that the complex overall is paying twice for security and that every proprietor is paying for security not required. There are certain times when security is essential, particularly at night on weekends.

[26] The CBC submits:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>It is not responsible for the applicant’s costs for the provision of security services because the applicant and the CBC are each responsible for the provision of security services for its own scheme.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The applicant terminated the Agreement for the provision of security services and the applicant and the CBC have not entered into any agreement with each other that requires the CBC to be responsible for the provision of security services on the applicant’s common property.

[27] I agree with the CBC’s submissions. As I have dismissed the second order sought, I do not consider there is a basis for making the third order sought.

The code of conduct

[28] The applicant lastly seeks an outcome that the CBC give notice to Plan B for breach of the ‘Code of conduct for body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors’. The applicant submits:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Mr Raumer, the director of Plan B, is the chairperson of the executive committee and has a financial interest as to whether the Agreement is enforced.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Mr Raumer chaired the February meeting, entered into discussion on whether or not the Agreement would be enforced and may have voted on the issue.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>This breaches the item 8 of the ‘Code of conduct for body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors’ which Plan B must comply with under clause 15.1(h) of the Agreement and is a conflict of interest.

[29] The CBC submits:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The applicant is unclear as to whether the breach notice should be given to the caretaker for breaching the code of conduct under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997(BCCM Act) or the incorporated code of conduct in the Agreement.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>If it is for breaching the code under the BCCM Act, the CBC cannot issue a breach under the BCCM Act. The CBC cannot issue a breach notice to the caretaker at this stage because the applicant has not provided specific evidence of the alleged breach and the applicant has not stated an applicable action that the caretaker can perform to remedy the alleged breach.

[30] Clause 15.1(h) of the Agreement provides that a default by Plan B includes if Plan B commits a serious breach of the code of conduct stated in schedule 2 of the BCCM Act. If Plan B has made a default the CBC may do all or any of three things including notify Plan B of the default complained of and require Plan B to remedy the default (clause 15.2(b)).
[31] The applicant argues item 8 of the code of conduct was breached by Mr Raumer’s participation in a discussion at the February meeting relating to enforcing the Agreement. Given section 188A(1) of the MUD Act, Mr Raumer had to disclose to the meeting his direct or indirect interest in the issue if the interest could conflict with the appropriate performance of his duties about the consideration of the issue. If Mr Raumer was required to disclose an interest in the issue and was a voting member of the committee, he could not vote on a motion involving the issue (s 188A(2), MUD Act).
[32] The applicant does not know if Mr Raumer voted on any motion relating to enforcing the Agreement. There is nothing to suggest any vote by Mr Raumer influenced the outcome of any such motion. However, this is not the issue for the applicant. The applicant believes item 8 of the code relating to unconscionable conduct in performing functions under the Agreement was breached by Mr Raumer’s actions at the committee meeting. I am not satisfied from the applicant’s submissions that this item was breached. It is not apparent that Mr Raumer was performing functions under the Agreement at the meeting.
[33] In addition, there is nothing to suggest that prior to making this application the applicant gave notice to the CBC complaining that it believed Plan B had breached the Agreement. As submitted by the CBC, it cannot issue a breach notice to Plan B because the applicant has not provided specific evidence of the alleged breach and the applicant has not stated an applicable action that the caretaker can perform to remedy the alleged breach.
[34] For these reasons, the order sought is dismissed.

Matters raised by Mr Jasch

[35] In replying to submisssions, Mr Jasch submitted:

  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The rubbish bins are collected from each separate body corporate building using a tractor and towed to a pickup area under another body corporate building. Mr Ellis was informed by Mr Raumer that he could not use the tractor to tow bins. Levies paid by the applicant to the CBC have been used to purchase the tractor and are used for its maintenance and operating costs.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Given the length of time the service has been undertaken by the CBC and paid for by the applicant, notice should have been given and time allowed to raise levies for a tractor. It is discriminatory that the applicant’s caretaker cannot use the tractor when the caretakers of the other bodies corporate can. If the first order sought is dismissed, an order should be made to allow the applicant’s caretaker to use the tractor for rubbish collection.
  • <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The CBC will also not make available to the applicant the security camera monitors and camera footage which is used by the caretakers of the other bodies corporate. If the second order sought is dismissed, an order should be made that the applicant’s caretaker and/or security have access to the CBC camera security equipment including monitors and recording equipment.

[36] Mr Jasch suggests the tractor is personal property of the CBC. He also suggests the CBC has security equipment. This equipment may also be personal property of the CBC. If not, it may be community property held by the CBC.
[37] The CBC must do all things that are necessary and reasonable for the control, management and administration of the community property (s 167(9)(b)(ii), MUD Act). It may acquire and hold any personal property to facilitate the carrying out of its functions (s 176(e), MUD Act). The CBC must control, manage and administer for the benefit of its members the community property held by it (s 177(1)(a)(i), MUD Act).
[38] Given this legislative context, it could be argued the applicant has a right to use the tractor and to access security equipment. However, this could be subject to any number of factors, including the basis on which the tractor and the equipment was acquired, whether the tractor and the equipment is CBC property, any decisions the CBC has made about the tractor and the equipment and its legal obligations with respect to the tractor and the equipment. Mr Jasch asks for orders with respect to the tractor and the equipment. It is not appropriate that any such orders are made in the determination of this application. This is because orders of this nature were not sought by the applicant and these orders are not ancillary or consequential to the orders that were sought.

[1] The committees for Oxford & Cambridge and Notre Dame bodies corporate support the CBC committee submissions.
[2] See Whitfield and Anor v Vardon Point Apartments [2012] QCAT 543.

[3] Even though there is nothing to suggest this submission has been made under the authority of the applicant, I have given consideration to it in the determination of the application.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2013/297.html