As we move into summer a timely case reminds us of the Committee’s obligation to “act reasonably” in their dealings with owners.

Would you believe, readers, this dispute was over the colour of an external ceiling fan?

In Flow [2025] QBCCMCmr 398, the owner of Lot 44 received a by-law contravention notice for contravening the requirement not to make a change to the external appearance of his lot without the Committee’s written approval, following the replacement of a broken white ceiling fan in his courtyard with  a rattan (light-brown) coloured fan. The fan replacement project took place in January 2023, the  Committee requested the rattan fan be replaced with a white fan in July 2024 and on 1 November 2024, issued a contravention notice citing a contravention of the by-laws.

Essentially the Committee’s concerns were that:

1. The Lot owner had made a change to the external appearance of his lot without Committee’ approval; and
2. Breached (it was not well identified) his obligations with respect to curtain colours in installing the rattan fan to replace the broken white fan

On 2 April 2025, the Lot owner sought the Committee’s retrospective approval for the installed rattan fan.  The Committee rejected the request later in April, advising:

• The rattan fan did not meet the overall colour scheme, fixtures and fittings of the scheme;
• A by-law required curtains to remain white and although there was no specific by-law relevant to fans – this requirement was used by the Committee as a guideline for fittings to keep consistency in the building’s appearance;
• A by-law required any approvals given by the Committee are sympathetic to the tones of the improvements at the scheme.

The Lot owner requested copies of previous approvals for fixtures affecting the external appearance of the complex, including a black Victorian style garden lamp post and fountain, an orange gate panel, a black pendant light, a dark brown swing-arm light – none of these approval records were provided. 

Unsurprisingly, departmental conciliation was unsuccessful and the matter came before an Adjudicator with the Body Corporate as the Applicant.

The Adjudicator confirmed the obligation on the Committee to act in good faith, to make fully considered, rational and reasonable decisions that are not conflicted, arbitrary, patently absurd or plainly unjust.

The Adjudicator noted that whilst it was not the Adjudicator’s role to weigh up and balance competing factors and effectively re-determine the decision of the Body Corporate, it if its demonstrated that the body corporate apportioned sufficient weight to an irrelevant consideration to tilt the balance the other way, the decision is at risk of invalidation or intervention by an Adjudicator.

The Adjudicator found that the Lot owner had not contravened the by-laws.

Relevantly, of the by-law worded:

“An owner or occupier of a Lot must not, without the written approval of the Committee, make a change to the external appearance of the Lot”

the Adjudicator held:

• The above by-law did nothing more than require the Lot owner to obtain Committee approval;
• The by-law did not prohibit an owner or occupier from making any change to the external appearance of their Lot
• The by-law contemplates an owner making external changes to their Lot;
• The by-law should not be interpretate as having a prohibitive effect;
• The Committee could not deny a request made under the above by-law on the basis of the request not being made sooner or because it was a request for retrospective approval or because of the allegation that the Lot owner had previously contravened the above by-law;

The Adjudicator then turned their attention to the relevant considerations for the Committee in considering an application for the fan:

• the appearance of the fan including its colour;
• the appearance of fans installed within the other courtyards or balconies a the scheme;
• any consistent visual theme or uniform colour profile across the scheme considering all fixture and fittings in courtyards and balconies;
• any specific colours noted in the scheme’s by-laws as being part of the scheme building’s colour profile;

Taking it one step further, the Adjudicator provided a list of irrelevant factors when considering this type of request:

• a misinterpretation of the by-laws;
• any history of non-compliance with the scheme’s by-laws;
• the fact the Lot owner did not seek approval prior to installing the fan;
• the fact that the Lot owner was seeking retrospective approval.

The Adjudicator ultimately found that the Body Corporate had acted unreasonably and dismissed its application.

If you want to read the whole case – you can find it here:

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2025/398.html