One Shot at Your Claim: QCAT Appeal Stops Caretakers Re-running a Lost Pay Claim

A QCAT Appeal Tribunal decision delivered on 3 September 2026 is a sharp reminder for Queensland onsite managers: if a body corporate locks you out of your duties, you may only get one real chance to put your whole claim to the tribunal. In Body Corporate for Santorini by the Sea CTS 16829 v Melville & Melville [2026] QCATA 132, the Appeal Tribunal found that caretakers who lost a claim for unpaid remuneration could not run a second case for loss of profit over the same invoices.

What happened

The caretakers bought the caretaking and letting business in October 2009, with the body corporate's consent, under a 1995 management and letting agreement amended and incorporated in a 2002 Deed of Engagement. After disputes over a gate, contractor payments and invoices, the body corporate wrote on 15 May 2019 saying they were no longer recognised as the caretaking service contractor. No remedial action notice was given. It stopped paying the monthly remuneration, and from June 2019 it prevented the caretakers doing much of the work, including blocking access to cleaning equipment and engaging another cleaner. The caretakers affirmed the contract on 20 May 2019, kept it alive and kept invoicing.

The first case: pay follows performance

In the first QCAT proceeding, a complex dispute under section 149B of the BCCM Act, the caretakers sought declarations and payment of unpaid monthly invoices as a debt. They expressly did not claim damages. On 9 August 2021 the Member found the deed had been validly extended to 13 July 2027 and that the body corporate had prevented the caretakers performing their duties. But the remuneration clause was paid "in consideration of the performance" of the duties, so no debt arose for work not done. The proper remedy was damages measured as net loss of profit, and because there was no evidence of the caretakers' expenses, nothing could be awarded. The $167,545.70 claim for June 2019 to April 2021 was dismissed. That decision was not appealed.

The second case: blocked by Anshun estoppel

The caretakers returned to full duties in August 2021 and were paid from then on. In November 2022 they filed a second application, this time claiming $182,811 (excluding GST) as net loss of profit for June 2019 to August 2021. A Member refused the body corporate's strike-out application. On appeal, the presiding Senior Member held that test was applied wrongly. The question was not whether it was reasonable to keep the contract alive. It was whether a second judgment would conflict with the first. The caretakers could have affirmed the contract and still claimed damages in the alternative in the first case. Because they did not, an Anshun estoppel and an issue estoppel arose for the invoices already decided. Failing to deal with abuse of process, and give reasons on it, was also an error of law.

The exception: a continuing breach

The appeal did not end the dispute entirely. Invoices for May to August 2021 came after the first hearing. Blocking access to tools and work was treated as a continuing breach, so those later losses were a fresh cause of action and were sent back for further directions. The two members agreed on much but differed on the final orders. Under section 115 of the QCAT Act, the presiding member's decision is the Appeal Tribunal's decision.

Practical takeaways for onsite managers

• Put your whole case the first time. Plead debt and damages (net loss of profit) in the alternative, and bring evidence for each.
• Keep caretaking accounts that show wages, contractor costs, equipment and other expenses separately. Net loss can't be proved without them.
• Affirming or terminating is an election, and once you affirm you can't take it back. Take strata legal advice before replying to a "you're no longer our caretaker" letter.
• Know your remuneration clause. If pay is "in consideration of the performance" of duties, a lockout may not leave you with a simple debt claim.
• Watch appeal deadlines. Under section 143 of the QCAT Act, an appeal or an application for leave to appeal generally has to be filed within 28 days after the relevant day, usually the day written reasons are given.
• Keep a dated log of lockouts, refused access and duties you were stopped from doing. A continuing breach can support a later claim only for losses that are actually later.
• For committees, the law already sets the process: termination for failing to perform duties needs a remedial action notice first (Accommodation Module s 142; Standard Module s 152).

👉 Onsite managers: join TheOnsiteManager and operate as a legally authorised agent of TheOnsiteManager: https://www.theonsitemanager.com.au/join

Marketplace & industry hub: https://www.theonsitemanager.com.au

Sources: Body Corporate for Santorini by the Sea CTS 16829 v Melville & Melville [2026] QCATA 132 (3 September 2026, Senior Member Fitzpatrick and Member Taylor, queenslandjudgments.com.au); Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 115, 142, 143, 146; Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) s 149B; Accommodation Module s 142 and Standard Module s 152; QCAT, Appealing a QCAT decision (qcat.qld.gov.au).

General information only, not legal advice. Your agreements, regulation module and facts will affect the outcome. Get advice from a strata lawyer before you terminate, affirm or file a claim.