A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) decision has lamented the behaviour of a Gold Coast body corporate in failing to heed instructions and tying up the tribunal’s resources.
In his decision delivered on 27 May in Brisbane, Member Christopher Taylor said the body corporate’s application for a building dispute, which also sought $145,000 in damages, was “confused and confusing” and “doomed from the start”.
Member Taylor said the body corporate had embarked on litigation without having first obtained the authority of its members, which was a statutory pre-condition.
It had then commenced a proceeding in a forum that did not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim.
“The only outcome in this tribunal is that the proceeding must be dismissed,” he said.
The application was made in April last year against an engineering company which had carried out soil stabilisation work at the Mermaid Waters complex.
In September last year, Member Taylor gave orders to help the body corporate overcome “fundamental challenges” in pressing its claim.
One order required the body corporate to provide evidence of the passing of a resolution authorising the proceedings, required under Section 312 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCM Act).
The other orders required the parties to provide submissions on the preliminary issue of determining the classification of the work under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) and then the type of dispute to proceed with.
Member Taylor said the body corporate’s submission “continued the confused and confusing nature of its application”.
“Whilst it was not for this tribunal to make its case for it, nor to advise it how to go about conducting its case, to give some assistance to the applicant given it was self-represented in this proceeding, on 18 September 2025 I gave precise orders as to what was required with specific reference to that law,” he said.
“Yet, despite me highlighting the specific section of the legislation, (the representative) and the other committee members seemingly fail to either be aware of, or otherwise to understand, or worse to have simply chosen to ignore, the requirements of the law as it is found in the BCCM Act.”
He said despite clear legislation and clear orders, there was no evidence that the requisite special resolution had been passed.
“In all respects, the applicant has commenced this proceeding devoid of the effective procedural bases for doing so,” he said.
“That is not to say that the complaints it makes against the respondent do not have any validity. They may very well have substance, but such is not something I need consider nor have done so, and accordingly not something on which I make any finding.
“The singular issue is the absence of that procedural basis.”
Member Taylor said transferring the matter to another court was not an option given the absence of the requisite authority, so the only appropriate order was for the proceeding to be dismissed.
In his nine paragraphs of concluding remarks, Member Taylor said the applicant “seems to want to fall on the good graces of the tribunal to assist” it.
He pointed to one object of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), which was to have matters dealt with in a way that was accessible, fair, just, economical, informal, and quick.
He said it was intended that parties would represent themselves unless the interests of justice required otherwise.
“Where a party presents a case to this tribunal which is complicated in terms of the relevant and applicable law, it is such a case that should call for legal representation,” he said.
“But it remains a decision to be made by a party whether they seek the leave of this tribunal to be granted such representation.
“When a party chooses to conduct its case as a self-represented litigant it can be to their peril.
“This is particularly so in circumstances where they embark on their case and/or present it without having an adequate understanding of the relevant law and legal principles that arise within it, and at least have taken some legal advice about it and act in accordance with that advice, or at the very least obtaining assistance from a lawyer knowledgeable in the relevant field of the law in compilation of their case.
“Had the applicant done that here it should be expected that the threshold requirement for a special resolution being passed by the members of the body corporate would have been addressed.”
Member Taylor said the High Court had observed that “a frequent consequence of self-representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated by their own advocacy”.
“Whilst expressed in reference to a court, it applies equally to this tribunal and this proceeding. This is one of those cases,” he said.
“Whilst (the applicant’s) lack of knowledge in the law and litigation procedure was undoubtedly a misfortune for it in attempting to conduct its own case, it should not be considered by it, nor otherwise seen nor treated, as a privilege which afforded it some benefit.
“Here, the applicant embarked on this action without seemingly having any understanding of the legal principles its claim entails.
“Its own advocacy obfuscated the rights it might have been able to prosecute if presented in a coherent manner consistent with the law.”
He said, however, the matter was made even more complicated by the fact the body corporate committee had no understanding of its governing legislation in terms of the special requisite resolution.
“It is surprising, and concerning, that persons who take on the role of body corporate committee members do not make themselves aware of such a basic and fundamental requirement of the law,” he said.
“It is even more concerning that, having been alerted to the fact by me in the Directions Hearing on 18 September 2025 as to what was required, the applicant did not take the necessary steps to address the point properly.
“Nor did it seemingly make any effort to carefully consider the preliminary issue points as I laid them out.”
Member Taylor said had the committee done this, it would have realised it should have filed a Notice of Withdrawal.
“Such would have avoided the unnecessary use of the limited and stretched resources of this tribunal as well as possibly preserving it some ability to press its claim in a future proceeding,” he said.
“Having however elected to push on, it left itself exposed to only one outcome, such being a dismissal of this proceeding and the consequences which flow from that outcome.”
Read the decision here.
Share this article