A recent Queensland adjudication decision, Villas Mermaid [2026] QBCCMCmr 321 (17 September 2026), is an interesting read for anyone involved in strata or body corporate management.
At the centre of the dispute was a familiar problem:
- ageing roofs
- ongoing leaks and water ingress
- years of repairs and patching
- multiple professional reports
- significant replacement costs
- and owners repeatedly voting against proposed major works.
So, at what point does continuing to repair something become unreasonable?
And can a body corporate simply keep voting down replacement because owners don’t want to pay for it?
The background
Villas Mermaid comprises 31 two-storey lots across three buildings.
The roofs had been the subject of concern for years. A 2022 roof assessment found the roofs were generally in poor condition and recommended a full roof restoration. A later report identified multiple areas where water could penetrate and suggested weighing the ongoing cost of patch repairs against full replacement as a potentially more practical and cost-effective solution.
By the 2024 AGM, owners were presented with two substantial proposals to remove the existing tiled roofs and replace them with Colorbond roofing.
- One proposal was approximately $448,500.
- The other was approximately $412,741.
Both proposals also involved significant special sinking fund levies. And both were defeated by owners. A similar proposal was subsequently defeated again in February 2025.
The dispute
The applicants essentially wanted orders requiring the body corporate to move forward with roof replacement, including orders around:
- installing new roofs;
- obtaining engineering advice about the appropriate roofing material;
- appointing a project manager;
- raising a special levy; and
- engaging a particular roofing contractor.
The argument was that the roofs had reached the end of their useful life and that continuing with repairs was no longer the appropriate solution.
But the adjudicator did not simply substitute their own preferred maintenance decision for the decision made by owners.
That distinction is important.
“Reasonable” doesn’t necessarily mean there is only one reasonable answer
One of the most useful aspects of this decision is the discussion around reasonableness.
A body corporate has statutory maintenance obligations. But that does not necessarily mean that every owner, or an adjudicator, must agree on the preferred method of satisfying those obligations. The decision recognised that there can be more than one reasonable course of action. The question is not simply:
“Would replacing the roof be a good idea?”
The more important question is whether the body corporate’s decision not to proceed with the particular proposal put before it was objectively unreasonable.
That’s a much higher bar.
Repair versus replacement
This is where the decision becomes particularly interesting.
The adjudicator accepted that there were longstanding roof maintenance issues and that some previous works had not been effective or sufficient. The January 2025 inspection material also indicated that the roofs were not currently in good condition and that further repairs remained necessary.
However, the adjudicator was not satisfied that the evidence established full roof replacement as the only reasonable option.
Importantly, the applicants did not point to expert evidence establishing that the roofs could not be repaired and had to be completely replaced. That mattered.
The body corporate therefore still had choices about how it could meet its maintenance obligations.
Owners can vote “no” — but that doesn’t make the problem disappear
This is probably the biggest practical takeaway. Owners are entitled to reject a particular proposal.
They might disagree with:
- the price;
- the contractor;
- the scope;
- the proposed roofing material;
- the funding arrangement; or
- the information provided before the vote.
But voting NO does not magically remove the underlying maintenance obligation.
If the common property requires maintenance, the body corporate still has to deal with it.
The adjudicator noted that the body corporate has a statutory obligation to undertake work reasonably necessary to return the roofs to good and structurally sound condition.
So the question becomes:
If we’re not doing this, what are we doing instead?
That is a conversation I think every strata committee and every strata manager should be encouraging.
“We don’t want to spend the money” isn’t a maintenance strategy
This is another important lesson from the decision.
There is a difference between legitimately rejecting a particular proposal and simply refusing to maintain common property because owners don’t want to incur the cost.
A body corporate cannot reasonably refuse to address necessary maintenance simply because owners don’t have the money, don’t want to raise the money or don’t like the price.
Buildings don’t care whether the AGM voted against the levy.
Water ingress doesn’t stop because a motion failed.
Concrete deterioration doesn’t wait for a more convenient financial year.
And roofs don’t repair themselves.
If the work is genuinely required, the conversation eventually has to turn to scope, timing and funding.
Funding matters… and motions need to be properly structured
There was another really useful governance point in this case.
The adjudicator noted issues with the way one of the proposed motions had been structured, including that only one quote had been provided at the meeting for expenditure substantially exceeding the relevant spending limit.
In other words, even where significant maintenance may ultimately be necessary, the approval process still matters.
Good governance means giving owners enough information to make an informed decision.
For major projects, that may mean:
- a clear scope of works;
- appropriate expert advice;
- comparable quotations;
- realistic funding options;
- an implementation timeframe; and
- clearly drafted resolutions.
A poorly structured motion can make an already difficult project even harder to get approved.
What about appointing engineers and project managers?
The applicants also sought orders requiring an engineer to advise on the best roofing material and requiring a project manager to oversee the works.
Those orders were not made.
Part of the difficulty was that the applicants had not demonstrated that these particular steps had first been properly put to the body corporate for consideration.
That’s another useful strata lesson:
Put the proposal to the owners first.
If you think an engineer is required — propose it.
If you think a project manager is necessary — obtain pricing and put it forward.
If you think a special levy is required — present the numbers and the alternatives.
Create the paper trail showing that the body corporate was given a reasonable opportunity to consider the issue.
The lesson for committees and strata managers
For me, the most important takeaway from Villas Mermaid isn’t that owners can simply vote against major maintenance.
They can’t ignore their maintenance responsibilities indefinitely.
But equally, the existence of a maintenance problem does not necessarily mean that one particular contractor, one particular scope, one particular material or one particular funding proposal becomes the only reasonable answer.
A useful reminder for WA strata schemes
This is a Queensland decision applying Queensland body corporate legislation, so WA strata companies should not treat it as determining their obligations under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
But the governance lesson travels well.
When major common property maintenance is required, strata managers and councils should be helping owners understand:
- what the problem actually is;
- what the experts recommend;
- what the available options cost;
- what happens if works are deferred; and
- exactly what owners are being asked to approve.
Owners don’t have to agree with the first solution put in front of them.
But if the building needs work, someone still needs to develop the next solution.
And sometimes good strata management is less about getting a particular motion passed and more about making sure owners have enough information to make a properly informed decision.
This post appears in Strata News #813.
Leigh Oliver
XO Strata
E: Leigh@xostrata.com.au
This article has been republished with permission from the author and first appeared on the XO Strata website.
Leave a Reply