Body Corporate Managers are regularly abused by lot owners and even committee members — often at Body Corporate meetings, in the form of offensive, obscene, indecent or abusive language, or threatening language and gestures.
Your right to exclude the offender depends on who owns the land on which the meeting is held. The meeting location, in most cases, must be within 15 km of the scheme, and sometimes meetings are conducted on the scheme land itself.
But what happens when you can’t practically exclude the abuser — for example, where the abuser is an essential committee member, or even the Chairperson?
In modern workplace law, ‘sucking it up’ is not an option — this kind of abuse is a workplace psychosocial hazard for the body corporate manager.
When courtesy and candour don’t work, and ejection from the meeting is not an option, can something else be done?
What is the ‘third space’?
Most body corporate meetings are conducted in the ‘third space’ — a term coined by urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg for social environments separate from home (the first space) and work (the second space), where people gather, build community and find a sense of belonging. Parks, cafes, community centres and pubs can all qualify as third spaces.
While some meetings are held on scheme land, it’s rare for them to be held within a lot (a first space) unless the scheme is small. Body corporate managers often conduct meetings at their own business premises instead (a second space).
If meetings are held on site, they’ll usually be on common property — the barbecue area, poolside, or a dedicated multipurpose room — i.e. a third space. This is typical, cheap and accessible. But is there an argument for using a different third space instead?
The law is evolving
There have been important advances this year in the law of nuisance within community titles schemes. Adjudicators have decided that section 167(1)(a) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 captures not just private nuisance but also public nuisance. Public nuisance is a creature of the common law.
This matters because traditional private nuisance is only actionable by an individual whose use and enjoyment of their land is substantially and deleteriously affected by a neighbour’s use of theirs — a private cause of action between neighbours. Bodies corporate don’t have standing in such disputes, but may gain standing where the private nuisance also amounts to public nuisance; see Il Palazzo [2026] QBCCMCmr 82 (16 March 2026) at [137].
A body corporate can take action against a lot owner or occupier whose conduct amounts to a public nuisance — one so widespread or indiscriminate that it would be unreasonable to expect one person alone to stop it, rather than the community at large taking action; see Palmhurst [2026] QBCCMCmr 88 (23 March 2026) at [49] to [53].
So section 167 of the BCCM Act could help regulate bad behaviour at meetings held in a third space (e.g. on common property) — but only where the conduct clears the bar for private nuisance, or is so offensive and widespread that it amounts to public nuisance. Both are high bars, and even if met, relief is likely to be slow, given how snowed under the Departmental Adjudicators currently are.
Is there a better way currently available?
Section 6 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 makes it an offence to commit public nuisance — including behaving in an offensive, threatening or violent way. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to 10 penalty units, or $1,727.
That rises to $4,317.50 where there are circumstances of aggravation — including committing the offence in the vicinity of licensed premises — or the Magistrates Court can impose up to 6 months’ imprisonment.
A public place means a place that is open to, or used by the public, whether or not on payment of a fee.
A breach of section 6 is a simple offence, prosecuted under the Justices Act 1886 as a summary proceeding — including privately. In other words, a body corporate can bring the prosecution itself.
Putting it into practice
Worked example: Instead of using the BBQ area, a body corporate hires a public meeting room from the local council, within 1 km of the scheme and adjacent to a licensed restaurant. The body corporate holds its general meeting there at 1 pm on a day that the restaurant is open. Lot owners attend in person or by teleconference; the meeting is recorded in audio and video. Midway through, one lot owner launches a tirade against the chairperson, the body corporate manager, and the committee — replete with references to the chairperson’s race and the manager’s religion, and ‘suggestions’ that they, and the rest of the committee, are going to pay for what they’re doing. Another lot owner tries to calm things down and is pushed back into their seat, and told to stay there or they’ll get more of the same.
This conduct could be reported to police, but doesn’t have to be for action to be taken — the body corporate can commence a private prosecution itself. The offender has acted in an offensive way (offensive, obscene, indecent or abusive language: tick) and a threatening way (threatening language: tick).
On these facts, there are up to 4 separate counts of public nuisance — the offensive language, the threatening language, the further threat to the intervening lot owner, and the physical push as violent behaviour. Each carries the maximum fine of up to $4,317.50 (given the proximity to licensed premises), so all 4 (4 × $4,317.50) could mean fines of up to $17,270, or even jail time.
Even if the Court was conservative and imposed 30% of the maximum fines available ($5,181, for example on the basis of a first offence and previous good character) it would be open to the body corporate to apply to the Court to receive half the fines ($2,590.50) when the State Penalties Enforcement Registry collects them, plus costs (noting that the scale is not very generous).
The takeaway
Departmental adjudications under the BCCM Act are becoming more common, and perhaps for that reason they are slow — and these days, an offender’s response can be drafted in a jiffy using AI. The prospect of having to go through that process is probably as fear-inducing as the threat of being beaten with a stale celery stalk.
In contrast, most people go their whole lives without being the subject of a sworn complaint, and a summons to appear for their conduct in a criminal proceeding. The offender also gets to marinate in that fear — starting from when they receive the general meeting notice, which contains the special resolution authorising their prosecution. Once the resolution is passed, the offender also gets to know exactly what their fellow lot owners think of them and their behaviour.
If your body corporate manager won’t countenance nuisance in their second space, and a meeting must be held in a third space, don’t automatically reach for the onsite, common property option. If you’ve had enough of a disruptive lot owner or committee member and want to send a clear message outside their comfort zone, consider the alternative.
Need help? If your body corporate is dealing with this kind of behaviour, get in touch.
This article was first published on 2 September 2026. It’s written by Michael Kleinschmidt, Legal Practitioner Director from our Sunshine Coast office.
© Bugden Allen Group Legal Pty Ltd. This is general information only and not legal advice. You should not rely on this information without seeking legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
