In the writer’s experience, community living is not for everyone.

Friction can occur when an occupier is unwilling or unable to accept that community living involves compromise, the observance of rules and that a “man’s home is NOT his castle”.

For many occupiers it is hard to adjust to community living after they have lived in a standalone property with virtually no restrictions on their use of that property and any changes they might make to their property.

The unfortunate fact for a handful of communities and owners is that hurt feelings and bruised egos, left unacknowledged, can fester, the outcome of which is never for the good of the community.

Bottom line: when dealing with Committee and other occupiers, apologise early and apologise often. 

You might think your message was immediately embraced with compassionate understanding by the intended recipient, but it is equally possible your message did not land or may have unintentionally caused offence.

With that life lesson in hand – we turn to a recent decision from a 39-lot scheme at Kings Beach.

The adjudicator noted that the dispute arose from a long-standing interpersonal conflict at the complex. Here is the decision if you wish to read it in full: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/2.html

Essentially, following an altercation in the scheme car park, the Applicant lot owner installed two cameras in their car parking space and was advised by the Committee to seek approval for those cameras. The Committee later refused approval once it was sought by the Applicant lot owner. The cameras remained in place.

The Applicant lot owner, unhappy with the Committee’s decision to refuse his security camera application, brought an application to ask the Adjudicator to:

1. Order the Committee to issue a full retraction and unreservedly apologise for each misleading and untrue statement (there were 17 listed statements); and

• Provide appropriate sanctions for Committee members for breaches of the Committee’s Code of Conduct.

Relevantly, the Applicant lot owner did not seek an order to overturn the Body Corporate’s decision not to approve his security cameras. One wonders why he elected not to ask for that order, given the level of his upset.

The Respondent Body Corporate, via the Committee, objected to the orders sought and provided further background of protracted personality clashes between the Applicant Lot owner and individual Committee members. Relevantly the Body Corporate identified that the Applicant lot owner had not made out his case, and no code of conduct sanctions existed for the Adjudicator to refer to.

The Adjudicator dismissed the case, noting:

• A body corporate must produce full and accurate minutes of committee meetings and this can include a summary of discussions;
• The Applicant lot owners; apparent disagreement with the premise of some statements in the minutes or the surrounding circumstances does not evidence that the statements did not accurately reflect the discussion at the relevant meeting such that the minutes could be said to be incorrect;
•  Beyond the general obligation to act reasonably, legislation does not specifically regulate body corporate or committee correspondence;
• The Applicant had no legal basis to support the orders requested;
• In terms of allegedly false statements made against the Applicant – it seemed the Applicant considered committee members to have not acted honestly or fairly – however – from the evidence – all that was apparent was a difference of opinion – no objection, dishonesty or unfairness was established
• The application was wholly without substance and misconceived
• Simply detailing a lengthy history and providing a volume of documentation does not substantiate the case.
• The Adjudicator noted that the Body Corporate’s lawyers wrote to the Applicant about the deficiencies in his case and the fact a costs order might be awarded against him – the Adjudicator gave serious consideration to ordering costs.

Whilst the Adjudicator declined to order costs against the Applicant in this instance, the warning bell was rung rather loudly.