A recent Standard Format Plan case highlights the significant difference between infrastructure managed by a Body Corporate under a Building Format Plan and that to be managed by a Lot Owner under a Standard Format Plan.
In Federation Row[1] the owner of Lot 5 discovered significant subsidence issues had caused his property to crack such that his home needed underpinning and its foundations to be repaired.
Given the Body Corporate for Federation Row was created as a Standard Format Plan complex, the Body Corporate did not have the responsibility to repair foundations or resultant damage to Lot 5.
After attempting to resolve the issue with the Committee, the Lot Owner submitted a motion for an EGM for the body corporate to pay $32,827.75 to underpin and remediate the Lot 5 slab, along with repairing internal walls and external brickwork.
The motion failed with only 1 yes vote and 6 no votes.
Accordingly, the Lot Owner commences his application and sought an order for the Body Corporate to pay for the rectification works to Lot 5.
The Applicant recognized that that as a Standard Format Plan complex – the Lot owner would normally be responsible for the foundations to his lot, however, given the Body Corporate was responsible for maintaining infrastructure which ran under his lot (i.e. a large storm water drain), the Applicant argued that settlement of the soil backfilling the storm water pipe had caused his foundations to sink.
The Applicant tendered an engineering report which focused on the structural cracking and potential foundation movement and soil reactivity/vegetation. The Applicant also had the Brisbane City Council check local storm water drainage on the street adjacent to his Lot, with Council confirming storm water drains were clear of any obstructions.
The Respondent Body Corporate noted the local development around the complex which had contributed to water run-off into Lot 5 and Lot 5 had not landscaped his yard to manage that run-off, as was recommended.
The Respondent Body Corporate tendered an inspection report from the Body Corporate’s plumbing noting that the drainage running under Lot 5’s Lot was functional and not in need of rectification.
The adjudicator found that soil surrounding the storm water infrastructure was not also “utility infrastructure” and that it was not reasonable to hold the Body Corporate accountable for the movement of that soil.
The Application was dismissed.
You can read the case here: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/10.html
[1] Federation Row [2026] QBCCMCmr 10 (21 January 2026)