As Body Corporate Managers, we are called upon from time to time to invoice lot owners for repairs which the Body Corporate has undertaken, which the Committee say, is to rectify damage caused by that lot owner.
That said, in matters of sewer infrastructure in a high-rise complex – it is not always possible to pinpoint where a blockage may have issued from where there are several junctions and units above the blockage point.
In the recent case Livingstonia[1] the Body Corporate was faced with the issue of a shared sewer line becoming so blocked as to be inoperable. The owner of Lot 5135 contacted the body corporate noting an issue with a blocked sewer which the Body Corporate undertook to investigate.
The Committee secured the services of a plumber to investigate the blockage and report back. That plumber identified a blockage caused by building materials – grout and concrete specifically in the shared sewer line below Lot 5135.
The plumber attempted to dislodge the grout and concrete using a high-pressure jet rodding machine, however the blockage could not be dislodged and a second, more specialized contractor was required to attend.
The second plumbing contractor used a chemical solvent, returning to site over several days to apply the solvent, before the blockage was finally cleared.
All up the plumbing costs exceeded $10,700.00. The Body Corporate paid the plumbing invoices and then requested the owner of Lot 5135 be billed for the entire amount.
The Lot owner offered to pay $3,500.00 towards the account in full and final settlement – however – this offer was rejected by the Body Corporate. Unable to reach a satisfactory agreement with the Lot Owner, the Body Corporate sought an order be made by a referee.
The Adjudicator reviewed the plumbing invoices and noted the plumber was met by the Chairperson on site who advised Lot 5135 had conducted bathroom renovations and was not upstream of other junctions.
The Adjudicator found that the plumber did not independently investigate whether the concrete and other building materials came from Lot 5135. The assertion that grout and concrete had come from Lot 5135 was repeated in later invoices.
The Adjudicator noted that the Body Corporate failed to provide plumbing schematics for the building and asserted that the grout/concrete could only have come from Lot 5135 as no other lots above Lot 5135 shared the sewer stack.
The Adjudicator reviewed the survey plan for the complex and noted it was possible building materials may have come from the units above or on the same floor as Lot 5135.
The Adjudicator was accordingly not satisfied that the grout and concrete could only have come from Lot 5135.
The Body Corporate’s application was accordingly dismissed.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2025/160.html
[1] Livingstonia [2025] QBCCMCmr 160 (16 May 2025)