In Sunrise at 1770 [2026] QBCCMCmr 68, an Adjudicator was requested to vary an interim order which precluded Respondent Lot owners from building on their residential lot in 1770, Queensland.

By way of background, Sunrise at 1770 is a community titles scheme comprised of large flat blocks of land in Agnes Waters. Owners who purchase into that scheme are required to observe bushfire management pruning and must seek the Body Corporate’s approval to the layout and construction of any home or other structures to be built on the block of land purchased, before they commence building.  

Prior to the case subject of this article, the Body Corporate sought and was granted a number of interim orders against the Respondent Lot owners precluding those lot owners from immediately commencing to build on their purchased blocks of land. The Respondent Lot owners had built a driveway, following engineering advice to ensure a large tree was kept as part of the driveway build.  

After receiving the interim orders, the Respondent Lot owners wrote to the Adjudicator and requested that the interim orders be cancelled arguing that the CMS binding their scheme was subordinate to state planning legislation and as such they did not need to seek the Body Corporate’s approval to build their home.

The Adjudicator noted that a power to vary or cancel interim orders existed and could be exercised by the Adjudicator.

The Respondent Lot owners advised the Adjudicator that:

• The Body Corporate’s representatives had improperly accessed their land without notice to take photos which were presented to the Adjudicator to misrepresent their works on the land; and
• The Body Corporate had deactivated the Respondent lot owners’ fob necessary for access through common property areas and access to the padlocked vegetation drop off area required for the disposal of non-mulchable waste vegetation; and
• That Body Corporate was making inconsistent decisions as to what other owners could remove as dead organic matter from their land; and
• The individual Body Corporate members were using vehicles to block access to the Respondent Lot owner’s land; and
• That the Respondent Lot owners had only pruned and cleared vegetation from their lot in compliance with a bushfire hazard and management plan applicable to all lots within the scheme; and
• The driveway to their land was designed by an engineer to meet all of the Body Corporate’s requirements and to avoid any trees being removed, to preserve the amenity of the natural surrounds.

The Body Corporate was invited to respond to the allegations raised and they submitted:

• The interim orders remained necessary to prevent the Respondent Lot owners from continuing unsanctioned works and harming the ecological features of the scheme; and
• That the Body Corporate did not improperly access the Respondent Lot owner’s land and if they did (which was not admitted) it was in response to an immediate threat of potential bushfire given the Respondent lot owners had emptied petrol onto dry cleared vegetation and were storing unsecured petrol cans, chainsaw and woodchipper on their land;
• The Respondent Lot owners had commenced other unsanctioned works on their land, and the Body Corporate was considering whether to commence enforcement action.

The Adjudicator investigated the various allegations of both parties and found:

• The interplay between multiple pieces of legislation – each with a different purpose and made by different levels of government is complex – however the Respondent Lot owners are still required to comply with the scheme’s CMS;
• The interim order allowed the Respondent Lot owners to remove any non-living organic matter which might pose a fire risk – it was appropriate to keep this order in place;
• The Body Corporate was not authorised to disable the Respondent Lot owner’s access to the common property;
• It was appropriate to keep the interim orders in place.

The Adjudicator declined to cancel the interim orders and made additional comments on the conduct of the parties.

The Adjudicator recommended that the Body Corporate immediately enable the Respondent Lot’s owner’s fob to allow them to enter and exit the common property as disabling the fob likely exceeded the Body Corporate’s authority.

The Adjudicator recommended that the Respondent Lot owners submit their proposed house designs to the Body Corporate for its approval, reminding the Body Corporate of its obligations to act reasonably in making its decisions.

The Adjudicator noted that no dispute should ever devolve into threats of violence or physical altercation.

If you wish to read the entire case you can go here: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/68.html?context=1;query=sunrise%20at%201770;mask_path=au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr