Recent rain has forced water ingress issues into the spotlight again for many bodies corporate unfortunately.

In Camden [2026][1] an Applicant lot owner found themselves at odds with the Committee for this scheme after the lot owner raised concerns about water flowing freely into the building’s basement during the January 2022 floods whilst the basement walls (which were structural walls) were designed to be impervious to water.

In January 2024 both the Applicant lot owner and another concerned owner at the complex emailed the Committee expressing concern about the continued water ingress and requesting a subject matter specialist and professional be engaged. Follow up correspondence was sent in April 2025.

The Committee meeting minutes of 21 May revealed the Committee discussed garage water ingress and engaged a plumber to look at the issue and engaged a “specialist consultant from the property across the road”, who advised the blockwork was in very good condition and that normal rain should not pose a problem for future leaks. The Committee resolved to continue to monitor for future leaks.

No report from the “specialist consultant” was provided to the Applicant following the meeting.

The Applicant lot owner voiced concerns over the lack of written report and in August 2025 he tabled a further motion for the September Committee meeting proposing an inspection of the basement wall.

At the September 2025 Committee meeting, the Committee resolved to appoint MPN Consulting to inspect the basement wall and in October 2025 that report was provided. The report was largely directed to structural questions such as cracks and spalling. The report recommended that the external waterproofing membrane not be repaired given cost and that the issue continue to be monitored.

The Applicant Lot owner found the MPN Consulting report to be inadequate and emailed all owners at the complex regarding his concerns.

Aside from the basement water ingress, the Applicant was also concerned about the load bearing capacity of the upper driveway at the complex and the roof and parapet roofing membrane which was now more than 13 years old.

The Applicant Lot owner filed his application seeking orders to compel the Body Corporate to engage an engineer to identify the causes of water ingress, assess structural integrity and provide written recommendations for remediation. 

The adjudicator ultimately found merit in the Applicant lot owner’s case and found that:

• The obligation to maintain the common property is proactive not reactive;
• A Body Corporate must investigate suspected defects and cannot wait for structural failure before acting;
• A Body Corporate must act reasonably in making a decision, including decisions not to investigate or repair the common property;
• The reports submitted by the Committee’s engineer were limited to structural issues and did not identify the source of the water ingress or any steps to remediate the same;
• The Applicant’s photographs showed visual cracking, efflorescence and water penetration consistent with a waterproofing failure; and
• The Body Corporate must investigate potential structural risks, particularly where heavy loads are involved

The Adjudicator made orders for the respondent Body Corporate to engage a suitably qualified structural engineer to inspect the basement wall and identify the cause of water ingress, inspect the upper driveway slab, and orders directing the Committee to meet within 30 days of a report being received to agree on a schedule of works for the complex.

If you wish to read the entire case you can go here: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/143.html

---

[1] Camden [2026] QBCCMCmr 143.