Strata Lawyers Archives - Bugden Allen Group Legal

The Cost of Cheap Development Lawyers

A familiar problem: rooftop structures that benefit only some

On my desk at the moment are three matters for three different bodies corporate, all with the same problem – whether to remove, replace or repair rooftop building elements that benefit only some of the lot owners.

The architects for their buildings (bless their creative cotton socks) had incorporated rooftop elements that would provide amenity (and thus sales value) to rooftop areas sold to penthouse owners, without breaching gross floor area / ‘habitable space’ restrictions.

Think part roofs, shade sails or even retractable blinds covering some of the ‘roof garden’ or rooftop exclusive use ‘courtyards’, to keep the sun off the champagne bucket (with matching flutes), artfully captured in the ‘off the plan sale’ marketing shots for said penthouses.

The issue of course is that, particularly in coastal environments, those rooftop structures get damaged by extreme weather (hell, they even get sun-damaged by ‘normal weather’!), they degrade over time, and eventually need to be repaired, replaced or removed. That deadline can approach even faster when routine maintenance is not performed.

In every one of these cases that I look at, there is an assumption that the body corporate must maintain the rooftop structures. Inevitably that has been done (a little bit) in the past, but when the big bill falls due to be paid, the issue is looked at seriously, and for the first time, properly.

Why has no one looked at this before?

What? You say, why has no one looked at this properly in the last 15 to 20 years?

Well, because nothing has fallen down in that time, the building has been painted at least once already, and a good paint job covers a lot of sins, even the red ferrous monster waiting to emerge.

The strata lawyer’s algorithm

The strata lawyer’s ‘algorithm’ in such cases is pretty straightforward:

identify and locate the structures in question
locate the boundaries between and among the relevant lots and common property
check whether there is any grant of exclusive use
determine who owns the structures
determine what the maintenance obligations are, and who they fall on
determine what maintenance has been done in the past, by whom and when
determine (I should say ‘try to predict’) who an Adjudicator is likely to find responsible
get quotes for the options to repair, replace or remove
formulate sensible recommendations, consistent with the facts, the law, and the likely length of the Adjudicator’s foot (an old equity lawyers’ joke; look up the ‘Chancellor’s foot’ if you don’t get it)

As sure as night follows day, during that process, the strata lawyer scratches their head and says, ‘Why the hell was this not set up correctly in the first place?’, which statement of exasperation reflects an until then internalised professional assessment that the developer’s lawyers were twits.

Why it wasn’t set up correctly in the first place

Why? In almost all cases the ownership and maintenance obligations are not clearly planned for and then properly documented, so that they are clear. The most common result being that part of a structure is to be maintained by the body corporate, and another part by the penthouse owner.

Now, even if you don’t subscribe to the ‘user pays’ principle, the very least that a developer’s lawyer should do is to avoid that outcome, by ensuring that the titling and structuring arrangements resolve, or don’t give rise to, any ambiguity. This avoids fights later on, even if it is the body corporate (and thus all lot owners) who have to carry the can for replacing the ‘beautifully articulated’ rooftop structures.

A strata lawyer engaged by a developer would do that, and allocate the maintenance burden to the lot owner, where the rooftop structure concerned is only for that lot owner’s benefit. Why? Because that is the outcome least likely to cause expensive, time-consuming and socially divisive litigation later on, when the big maintenance bill falls due.

What a good strata lawyer actually does

Now, I know that developers’ lawyers (including BAGL!) operate in ‘red water’ (it’s competitive out there) and that they do their jobs, always, per the client’s instructions.

Having done this job for over a quarter of a century, I can tell you that the marginal cost of fixing issues like this, if the lawyer is involved early with the rest of the development team, is three fifths of stuff all.

A good strata lawyer knows where the lot and common property boundaries for a building will be, but more importantly, can be made to be, just as well as the surveyor does. A better strata lawyer can ask the architect about the maintenance regime and expected lifespan of the roof structures, and how they would be repaired or replaced (prompting a little architectural reflection, and revision, we hope). The best strata lawyers will then only have to check the draft survey plan, exclusive use plans and floor plans in the off-the-plan contract, as against what was thought about, planned for and presented to Council as part of the Development Application package, and then, if absolutely necessary, fix any little lacunas with a by-law tweak or two.

What it costs when nobody does

Why bother? Those three matters on my desk have repair, replacement and removal costs varying from $500K to $1.5m, and ranging from $10K per lot to upwards of $50K per lot. For that money, bodies corporate will hunker down, and they will fight, and they will expend great sums on legal expenses when doing so. All of which on the stated basis that ‘it is not fair that we pay to replace the shade sail over the penthouse owners’ rooftop BBQ areas’.

So, architects, developers and developers’ lawyers, please pay attention to this issue, and please get it right, in the beginning. It costs very little to do, and if you do it, you won’t leave a time bomb of confusion, stress, vitriol and disappointment behind you.

Final note: if you think you will be long gone by then, and no one will connect you with the problem at hand… I cannot speak for other strata lawyers, but inevitably I find that when advising on these matters, I always seem to end up pointing out, in my advice, who the original development team was. That is, who designed, who structured, and who sold the problem that my clients are now facing.

Michael Kleinschmidt
Principal & Director, Bugden Allen
michael.kleinschmidt@bagl.com.au | 07 5406 1280

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It is written from a Queensland perspective, and the law differs between States and Territories. You should obtain advice specific to your circumstances before acting.

ⓗ Human drafted with AI assistance

Body Corporate Contracts Body Corporate Manager Conflict of Interest Disclosure Requirements Fiduciary Duties Form 35 Lot Owners Rights Queensland strata law

Was our body corporate manager’s Form 35 disclosure enough?

Question: What disclosure is required if our body corporate manager part-owns the company put forward for a new contract? They ticked “no commercial arrangement” on the Form 35.

Our grounds maintenance contractor resigned, and the committee put out an EGM asking owners to vote on a replacement. The process wasn’t advertised, and only two companies were listed as options. An ASIC search revealed the cheaper option is half owned by our body corporate manager through a holding company. None of this was in the voting pack. A Form 35 appeared a week after the notice went out and only after I raised the matter. On the Form 35, they ticked “no commercial arrangement, commission or other benefit”, which is hard to swallow when you own 50% of the company. The committee responded that he disclosed to them during quoting (not in minutes) and did not evaluate the tenders, but their own minutes confirm he was asked to coordinate other bids.

Additionally, no contract or terms were attached to the EGM vote, just price on a $100k contract.

Should owners have been told of the manager’s ownership before the ballot, not just the committee? Is that Form 35 declaration defensible? Are owners entitled to proper contract documents before voting on something of this size?

Answer: Ticking “no commercial arrangement” while owning half the tendering company is, at best, sterile compliance that may not satisfy fiduciary duties.

It’s normal for a maintenance contract not to be ‘advertised’, but nothing else about your new contract is, or should be regarded as, normal…

First, the body corporate manager (BCM) must give a written notice to the body corporate, before the EGM, disclosing the relationship between the BCM and the related maintenance company (Related Company); see section 154 of the Standard Module. Failure to do so is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to 20 penalty units ($3,338) for an individual and 5 times that amount for a company ($16,690). Handing over a Form 35 before the vote at the EGM is likely to satisfy the timing requirement, because the notice is sent before the EGM at which the decision was made. However, note that the Form 35 is given to the body corporate and not the owners, which in my view is a failing in the legislation, that ought to be remedied by the committee, acting in the best interests of the lot owners, circulating a copy of the Form 35 to all lot owners before the vote (and in enough time to be considered before votes are cast).

A BCM who is being open, honest and forthright about their dealings would give the Form 35 to the body corporate ASAP once the quote from the Related Company is received. The BCM may well have done this… but the BCM obviously did not insist on the Form 35 going out with the voting pack, which is concerning in my view.

Next, the BCM has to disclose whether under the new contract ‘or under another contract or arrangement’ the BCM is entitled to receive, other than from the body corporate ‘a commission, payment or other benefit that is associated with the’ new contract, including with entering into the new contract; see section 156 of the Standard Module. What the BCM has said by ticking ‘no commercial arrangement, commission or other benefit’ is what we in the legal profession call ‘sterile compliance’. In other words, it’s arguably a true statement if the wording of the legislation is read narrowly, instead of being read to address the mischief that Parliament was trying to address with the legislation. It’s farcical to suggest that if you own half of the Related Company and you won’t receive at least ‘another benefit’ under an ‘arrangement’. For example and obviously, dividends on shares held in the Related Company arising from profits made on the new contract.

Finally, lot owners cannot make a sensible decision and thus a lawful and enforceable one, about entering into a contract if they don’t know what the contract is and what the contract’s terms are. This is probably the strongest ground for seeking to have the result of the vote on entering a new contract set aside.

Compliance with section 154 and section 156 of the Standard Module will avoid prosecution under those sections, but it does not ‘cure all’. A lot of BCMs and lot owners don’t understand that there is a large body of law outside the Act and Modules that applies to these sorts of issues. It’s called the law of fiduciaries, and sterile compliance is not enough to get a fiduciary off the hook. Disclosure has to be timely, meaningful and delivered to the right people. Otherwise, it won’t be effective. Further, sometimes disclosure cannot cure a breach of fiduciary duties, for example, when there is a conflict between the duties of the fiduciary (BCM) to their principal (body corporate) and the fiduciary’s own interests.

In my view, BCMs should avoid these situations whenever possible. This sort of thing undermines public trust and confidence in BCMs and in the sector. Vertical integration may be a successful business strategy in other sectors, but in the strata management sector, vertical integration is so fraught with compliance, fiduciary and ethical issues that professional BCMs should avoid it altogether.

This post appeared first in the September 2026 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine and was written by Michael Kleinschmidt in our Sunshine Coast office.

Mandatory Training for NSW Strata Committee Members: What Changes from 1 October 2026

Strata committees make decisions that affect other people’s biggest asset: building funds, contractor appointments, by-laws, insurance, repairs, and the day-to-day running of the scheme. Most committee members are volunteers. Very few have any formal grounding in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA) before they take the role on.

From 1 October 2026, that changes. New and returning strata committee members in New South Wales will be legally required to complete free training — and if they don’t, they automatically stop being a committee member. This is not a recommendation or a best-practice guideline. It is a statutory requirement, and it has real consequences for scheme governance if it’s overlooked.

Key takeaways

From 1 October 2026, new and returning strata committee members in NSW must complete free online training within three months of appointment or re-appointment.
The obligation is set out in section 37 of the SSMA, as substituted by the Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW).
A member who doesn’t complete the training in time automatically ceases to be a committee member — no formal notice is required for this to take effect.
Exemptions apply to two-lot schemes, members of the Australian College of Strata Lawyers, strata managing agents, and short casual vacancies.
Committee secretaries have new practical obligations: tracking completion, issuing reminders, and managing vacancies that result from non-compliance.
The equivalent requirement applies to community land schemes under section 41 of the Community Land Management Act 2021 (NSW).

Where the obligation comes from

The Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW) substitutes a new section 37 into the SSMA. As substituted, section 37 provides that each strata committee member has a set of duties — to act honestly, fairly and with due care, to comply with the Act and regulations, and to handle information appropriately — and then adds the training requirement:

each committee member must complete the training prescribed by the regulations;
a member who fails to complete the required training ceases to be a member of the strata committee; and
the Secretary may issue guidelines about notices to a member who has failed to complete the required training, informing them that they must complete the training and that they will cease to be a member if they don’t.

That last point was itself amended before section 37 even commences: the Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Act 2026 (NSW), assented 14 August 2026, replaced the original regulation-making power for these notices with a guideline-making power for the Secretary, and removed the reference to a “period prescribed by the regulations” from the notice provision. The underlying duty to complete training, and the automatic cessation for failing to do so, are unaffected.

The precise content, provider, delivery method and completion timeframe for the training remain matters for the regulations and for NSW Fair Trading administratively, rather than the Act itself — which is why the operational detail below comes from NSW Fair Trading’s Strata Hub rather than the legislation.

What the training involves

According to NSW Fair Trading, the course — Introduction to Strata Committee Rights and Responsibilities — will be:

Free to complete.
Online and self-paced, taking approximately one hour.
Delivered through NSW Fair Trading’s Strata Hub.
Focused on committee members’ legal duties and the committee’s governance role, along with practical grounding in repairs and maintenance, dispute resolution, and the financial management of the scheme.

On completion, NSW Fair Trading issues a Certificate of Completion, which the member should provide to the committee secretary.

Who has to do it, and by when

The requirement applies to committee members appointed or re-appointed on or after 1 October 2026, unless an exemption applies.

A member appointed on 1 October 2026 has until roughly 1 January 2027 — three months — to complete the training. If that person is re-appointed within the same 12-month cycle, the three-month clock restarts from the date of the new appointment.

Members already sitting on a committee before 1 October 2026 are not required to complete the training on that date alone. The obligation arises the next time they’re appointed or re-appointed. They can complete the training voluntarily before then, and the course will remain open to them regardless.

Exemptions

The training requirement does not apply to a committee member who is:

a member of a two-lot strata scheme;
a member of the Australian College of Strata Lawyers;
a strata managing agent; or
filling a casual vacancy for less than three months.

A member relying on an exemption should give the committee secretary evidence of it.

What happens if the training isn’t completed

This is the part committees are most likely to get wrong. If a member doesn’t complete the required training within three months of appointment, they automatically cease to be a committee member by operation of the Act — whether or not a formal notice is ever issued. The Secretary may issue guidelines allowing for a notice warning the member of this, and NSW Fair Trading has indicated a template Failure to Complete Training Notice will be published closer to commencement, but the absence of a notice doesn’t stop membership from lapsing.

That has flow-on effects for governance:

Decisions the committee made in good faith, without knowing a member had already ceased to hold office, will generally remain valid.
Once the committee becomes aware that a member’s position has lapsed, that person should be excluded from further committee decisions.
The committee should then consider whether a replacement is needed — which may require a general meeting of the owners corporation to appoint a new member.

What committee secretaries should be doing now

Ahead of 1 October 2026, secretaries (and the strata managing agents who support them) should be building this into their governance routine:

Issue a reminder to each new or returning committee member no later than two months after appointment, flagging the deadline and asking for the Certificate of Completion once done.
Collect and retain Certificates of Completion as part of the owners corporation’s records.
Where a member misses the deadline, issue a Failure to Complete Training Notice (once the NSW Fair Trading template is available) and notify the rest of the committee of the resulting vacancy.
Build training completion into the onboarding pack for any new committee member from 1 October 2026 onward.

This is exactly the kind of recurring, date-driven compliance task that suits a standing checklist or automated reminder workflow rather than manual tracking — something worth setting up once the Strata Hub process is confirmed.

Why this matters beyond compliance

Treating this as a box-ticking exercise misses the point. Committee members are regularly asked to make decisions involving significant expenditure, contractor and insurance arrangements, by-law changes, and disputes between owners — all under a statutory framework most of them have never read. A one-hour course won’t make someone an expert in strata law, but it gives committees a shared, baseline understanding of their duties and the limits of their authority, which reduces the risk of decisions being challenged later.

It’s also worth noting the training isn’t limited to people who are legally required to take it. From 1 October 2026, it will be open to prospective committee members, owners and residents generally, two-lot scheme members, and existing members not yet caught by the requirement. For a scheme wanting a genuinely well-informed committee, there’s little reason to wait for the three-month deadline to encourage members to complete it.

Frequently asked questions

When does mandatory strata committee training start in NSW? From 1 October 2026, new and returning strata committee members must complete the training within three months of their appointment or re-appointment.

Is the training compulsory for every committee member? For appointments and re-appointments from 1 October 2026, yes — unless an exemption applies (two-lot schemes, Australian College of Strata Lawyers members, strata managing agents, or short casual vacancies).

What happens if a committee member doesn’t complete the training in time? They automatically cease to be a committee member, whether or not a formal notice is issued.

Do committee members appointed before 1 October 2026 need to complete the training? Not immediately. The requirement applies when they’re next appointed or re-appointed, though they can complete the training voluntarily before then.

Is the training free? Yes. It’s delivered online through NSW Fair Trading’s Strata Hub at no cost, and takes approximately one hour.

Where can committee members complete the training? Through NSW Fair Trading’s Strata Hub, once the training is available from 1 October 2026.

Where this leaves your scheme

Mandatory training changes how committees are constituted, not just how they’re educated. A missed deadline doesn’t just leave a gap in someone’s knowledge — it can leave a gap on the committee itself, with consequences for quorum, decision-making and governance. Strata managing agents and committee secretaries should start building the three-month training window into their standard onboarding process now, well ahead of the 1 October 2026 commencement date.

If your scheme wants help reviewing governance processes ahead of these changes, contact the NSW team at Bugden Allen.

——

Sources:

strata contracts strata governance strata levies Supreme Court WA two-lot strata schemes unfinancial strata owners WA strata law

The Supreme Court of WA decides “unfinancial” doesn’t mean powerless: owners fight back

Owning the majority of the unit entitlement in a small strata scheme does not, by itself, authorise a co-owner to sign contracts for the strata company — and unpaid levies don’t make an owner “unfinancial” if the fund they were levied for was never validly established.

In Zhao v The Owners of 5 Wimbledon Street Beckenham Strata Scheme 40695 [2026] WASC 328, the Supreme Court of WA allowed an appeal from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), overturning findings that had validated strata management contracts, a legal costs agreement, and an administrative fund in a two-lot strata scheme.

The scheme in question comprises just two lots. The appellants own Lot 2 (46% unit entitlement); the respondent owns Lot 1 (54%). From about July 2020 the appellants stopped paying strata levies and disputed the strata company’s management, including strata management contracts and a legal costs agreement signed only by the respondent. In August 2025 the Tribunal found against the appellants on every issue, validating those contracts and authorising the establishment of an administrative fund with retrospective effect.

The appellants, unrepresented, appealed. Despite filing the appeal 24 days late, the Supreme Court granted an extension of time, finding no prejudice to the respondent. The appellants argued that the respondent had no authority to sign the contracts, that unpaid levies did not make them “unfinancial” absent a validly established administrative fund, and that the Tribunal had no power to establish such a fund. The Supreme Court largely agreed.

The Court found that:

the respondent’s signature alone was not valid execution of the strata management contracts or the legal costs agreement, and their larger unit entitlement made no difference — the AGM resolution only authorised the council (that comprised both owners) to act jointly, and no vote by unit entitlement was ever demanded;
even where an owner is genuinely “unfinancial”, that only removes their right to vote on an ordinary resolution — it doesn’t affect council membership or their authority to execute documents; and because the by-laws didn’t require an administrative fund, the levies said to be owed were never validly raised, so the appellants were never actually “unfinancial”;
the Tribunal had no power to order the strata company to operate an administrative fund when resolving a general dispute — that requires a specific application under s 140(3) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), which was never made.

The Court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s declarations and orders, and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration — declining to substitute its own orders.

The key takeaway: majority unit entitlement is not a substitute for proper authorisation, and a strata company cannot treat an owner as “unfinancial” — with the voting consequences that follow — on the strength of levies that were never validly raised. Small (two-lot) schemes should ensure administrative funds, contracts and costs agreements are all put in place strictly in accordance with the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).

If you need advice or assistance in respect of strata company governance, contract execution, or Tribunal or Supreme Court proceedings, please do not hesitate to contact the team at our Perth office.

This article was first published on 7 September 2026 and was written by Ray Santos, Lawyer in our Perth office.

BCCM Act body corporate meetings committee conduct psychosocial hazards public nuisance Queensland strata Summary Offences Act

Nuisance in the Third Space

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.