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

5KIPGFD[#WUV.++
                                                               6



                    [24]   The outcome sought by the applicants was:
                                With regard to the body corporate for North point CT S7575:

                                     All purported resolutions made 12 July 2011 be set aside.

                                     The purported notice of EGM of 21 June be set aside as invalid.

                                With regard to the Queensland Police Credit Union, QPCU:

                                     That the QPCU pay all the costs of new air-conditioning installed for
                                      its premises at Ground Floor and Level I at North Point.

                                     That the QPCU forthwith account to the body corporate for all monies
                                      received by it in respect of carparks let out by it on common property
                                      on the upper level car park, under an exclusive use basis procured in
                                      its favour.

                                     That the QPCU forthwith account to the body corporate for rental and
                                      compensation for the ATM it has installed in the ground floor lobby in
                                      the amount of $12,580 pa in the first year, increasing by 4% pa every
                                      year thereafter.

                                     That QPCU be required to execute a lease, and be responsible for all
                                      electricity used as well as proper maintenance of the appearance of
                                      the ATM enclosure as well as all reinstatement costs incurred if and
                                      when the ATM is removed.

                    [25]   The applicants provided extensive submissions to the Adjudicator in the
                           course of the proceedings, and also to this appeal tribunal. Some of the
                           points now taken were not raised in the original proceedings, and, as will
                           be indicated, some of them are not open to be relied on in this appeal.

                    [26]   It seems to me that the appeal can be most conveniently dealt with under
                           seven main headings:

                                (a)   whether the time for notification of the meeting was too short;
                                (b)   whether Ballada cast a valid vote;
                                (c)   other points alleging invalidity of the meeting;
                                (d)   alleged invalidity of resolutions;
                                (e)   claim against QPCU for payment of the cost of the air
                                      conditioning project;
                                (f)   claim against QPCU for payment of its earnings from its
                                      “exclusive use” car park areas;
                                (g)   claim against QPCU concerning its installation and use of an
                                      ATM in the foyer of the common property.

                    [27]   Of these only the issues in (a), (b), (c) and (d) involve claims against the
                           Body Corporate. They are designed to invalidate the meeting of 11 July
                           2011 and to negative the body corporate’s authorisation for the air
                           conditioning scheme to proceed. The remaining three issues are claims
                           made directly against the QPCU. The legal basis of these claims is difficult
                           to fathom. They were not made, for example, on the basis of a claim




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


[OCR of page images]
Signed by AustLll

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

The outcome sought by the applicants was:
With regard to the body corporate for North point CT S7575:
. All purported resolutions made 12 July 2011 be set aside.
. The purported notice of EGM of 21 June be set aside as invalid.
With regard to the Queensland Police Credit Union, QPCU:

. That the QPCU pay all the costs of new air-conditioning installed for
its premises at Ground Floor and Level | at North Point.

. That the QPCU forthwith account to the body corporate for all monies
received by it in respect of carparks let out by it on common property
on the upper level car park, under an exclusive use basis procured in
its favour.

. That the QPCU forthwith account to the body corporate for rental and
compensation for the ATM it has installed in the ground floor lobby in
the amount of $12,580 pa in the first year, increasing by 4% pa every
year thereafter.

. That QPCU be required to execute a lease, and be responsible for all
electricity used as well as proper maintenance of the appearance of
the ATM enclosure as well as all reinstatement costs incurred if and
when the ATM is removed.

The applicants provided extensive submissions to the Adjudicator in the
course of the proceedings, and also to this appeal tribunal. Some of the
points now taken were not raised in the original proceedings, and, as will
be indicated, some of them are not open to be relied on in this appeal.

It seems to me that the appeal can be most conveniently dealt with under
seven main headings:

(a) whether the time for notification of the meeting was too short;

(b) whether Ballada cast a valid vote;

(c) other points alleging invalidity of the meeting;

(d) alleged invalidity of resolutions;

(e) claim against QPCU for payment of the cost of the air
conditioning project;

(f) claim against QPCU for payment of its earnings from its
“exclusive use” car park areas;

(g) claim against QPCU concerning its installation and use of an
ATM in the foyer of the common property.

Of these only the issues in (a), (b), (c) and (d) involve claims against the
Body Corporate. They are designed to invalidate the meeting of 11 July
2011 and to negative the body corporate’s authorisation for the air
conditioning scheme to proceed. The remaining three issues are claims
made directly against the QPCU. The legal basis of these claims is difficult
to fathom. They were not made, for example, on the basis of a claim

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

Verify version