20181085-ASC12 - Ballada Pty Ltd v North Point Brisbane & Anor [2013] QCATA 184

5KIPGFD[#WUV.++
                                                               12



                    [59]   The applicants have expressed concern that the promoter and principal
                           beneficiary of the change of system is the QPCU. While that may so far
                           appear to be the case because of the sequence in which the work has so
                           far been performed, the Adjudicator observed:

                                 If the body corporate fails to proceed with the remainder of the air
                                 conditioning upgrade within a reasonable time, or fails to pass a motion
                                 submitted by either the committee or an owner to proceed with the
                                 remainder of the upgrade, any concerned owner could challenge the body
                                 corporate as unreasonable or failing to properly maintain common property
                                 infrastructure. On its face it would certainly seem unreasonable if the body
                                 corporate were not to complete the air conditioning upgrade to the
                                 remainder of the building within the foreseeable future.10

                    [60]   I agree with the Adjudicator’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence
                           to determine that the body corporate’s decision to upgrade was
                           unreasonable.

                    [61]   In the light of the earlier unanimous decision made at the Annual General
                           Meeting, the upgrading of the air conditioning was prima facie a matter for
                           the relevant community to determine, and no case has been made out of
                           oppression or of any other basis for external interference.

                    [62]   The finding that the upgrade was properly authorised and paid for by the
                           body corporate11 is in accordance with the evidence.

                    [63]   No error of law is apparent in the refusal by the Adjudicator to treat the
                           motions as inherently invalid, or as invalid on any of the grounds litigated.

                    Claim against QPCU for payment of cost of air conditioning project

                    [64]   The applicants’ claim is that QPCU must reimburse the body corporate for
                           the cost of the air-conditioning project. The legal basis of such an
                           obligation enforceable against the QPCU by the applicants is obscure.
                           The assumption underlying such a claim seems to be that the whole air
                           conditioning project was never properly authorised by the body corporate,
                           and that the QPCU somehow wrongfully caused it to be installed, or
                           wrongfully induced the body corporate to install it and pay for it, and must
                           therefore repay the body corporate’s expenditure. But no evidence was
                           produced to support these assumptions.

                    [65]   Unless the EGM resolutions are set aside as invalid, the first assumption
                           (that there was no authorisation to spend body corporate funds on such a
                           project) is clearly incorrect. The Adjudicator has found that the air
                           conditioning upgrade was properly authorised and paid for by the body
                           corporate and no error of law is shown that can invalidate such findings.




                    10
                            Ibid [92].
                    11
                             Ibid [97].




4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP/CTEJCV                                                             8GTKH[XGTUKQP


[OCR of page images]
Signed by AustLll

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

12

The applicants have expressed concern that the promoter and principal
beneficiary of the change of system is the QPCU. While that may so far
appear to be the case because of the sequence in which the work has so
far been performed, the Adjudicator observed:

If the body corporate fails to proceed with the remainder of the air
conditioning upgrade within a reasonable time, or fails to pass a motion
submitted by either the committee or an owner to proceed with the
remainder of the upgrade, any concerned owner could challenge the body
corporate as unreasonable or failing to properly maintain common property
infrastructure. On its face it would certainly seem unreasonable if the body
corporate were not to complete the air conditioning upgrade to the
remainder of the building within the foreseeable future."

| agree with the Adjudicator’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence
to determine that the body corporate’s decision to upgrade was
unreasonable.

In the light of the earlier unanimous decision made at the Annual General
Meeting, the upgrading of the air conditioning was prima facie a matter for
the relevant community to determine, and no case has been made out of
oppression or of any other basis for external interference.

The finding that the upgrade was properly authorised and paid for by the
body corporate"" is in accordance with the evidence.

No error of law is apparent in the refusal by the Adjudicator to treat the
motions as inherently invalid, or as invalid on any of the grounds litigated.

Claim against QPCU for payment of cost of air conditioning project

[64]

[65]

10

The applicants’ claim is that QPCU must reimburse the body corporate for
the cost of the air-conditioning project. The legal basis of such an
obligation enforceable against the QPCU by the applicants is obscure.
The assumption underlying such a claim seems to be that the whole air
conditioning project was never properly authorised by the body corporate;
and that the QPCU somehow wrongfully caused it to be installed, or
wrongfully induced the body corporate to install it and pay for it, and must
therefore repay the body corporate’s expenditure. But no evidence was
produced to support these assumptions.

Unless the EGM resolutions are set aside as invalid, the first assumption
(that there was no authorisation to spend body corporate funds on such a
project) is clearly incorrect. The Adjudicator has found that the air
conditioning upgrade was properly authorised and paid for by the body
corporate and no error of law is shown that can invalidate such findings.

Ibid [92].
Ibid [97].

Retrieved from AustLII on 30 March 2020 at 16:29:45

Verify version