On 6 November 2026 the Queensland Court of Appeal published L & L International Investment Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Arundel Springs East CTS 53560 [2026] QCA 229. For onsite managers and management rights holders, it is a timely reminder of how caretaker remuneration reviews work under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (BCCM Act) \u2014 and why a technical knock-out on review advice may not end the dispute.<\/p>\n
The Gold Coast scheme comprises 43 townhouses. The caretaker held a roughly 25-year caretaking agreement, remunerated at about $53,000 a year ($1,100 per residential lot). The body corporate requested a review of that remuneration under section 130(2)(b) of the BCCM Act. Review advice obtained inside the two-month window in section 132(1) wrongly assumed the scheme had 19 lots, not 43. Corrected advice came after that period.<\/p>\n
The body corporate then passed an ordinary resolution that it did not consider the remuneration currently fair and\/or reasonable, and applied to QCAT for a declaration and an order decreasing the remuneration. The caretaker argued QCAT had no jurisdiction because the review advice did not comply with section 132(1). QCATA [2025] QCATA 127 (16 December 2025) declared that QCAT had jurisdiction on the original application filed on 20 July 2023. The Court of Appeal (Mullins P, Doyle JA and Freeburn J) refused leave to appeal, with costs.<\/p>\n
Applying Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, the Court held that non-compliance with section 132(1) does not nullify the review advice or deprive QCAT of jurisdiction. Review advice is advisory and subsidiary: the parties are not bound to accept it. Invalidating the whole process for an error in that subsidiary step \u2014 potentially locking a decades-long contract out of review forever \u2014 would cut across a regime designed for a relatively speedy, informal review.<\/p>\n
Chapter 3, Part 2, Division 7 of the BCCM Act (sections 130\u2013134) sets out the review pathway for specified caretaking and letting agreements:<\/p>\n
The Arundel Springs East litigation shows that a defect in the advice step does not automatically erase QCAT's power to hear the dispute.<\/p>\n
1) Know your agreement and duties schedule. Remuneration disputes turn on what you actually do and what the market pays for equivalent work.<\/p>\n
2) Keep contemporaneous records of duties performed, hours, contractor costs and variations. That evidence feeds any review under section 134.<\/p>\n
3) Engage early with review criteria. Treat a review request as a commercial process, not only a legal one.<\/p>\n
4) Don't bank on a technical knock-out alone. Procedural defects in review advice may not kill jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
5) Seek advice early from a strata solicitor experienced in management rights if a review is requested or threatened.<\/p>\n
6) Stay professional with the committee. Written, factual responses protect both the scheme and the value of the management rights.<\/p>\n
The decision does not say caretaker remuneration is unfair, and it does not decide the merits of any decrease. It confirms that QCAT can hear the dispute even where review advice was flawed. Both bodies corporate and management rights holders benefit from a clear path to resolve long-term remuneration questions on substance rather than form.<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udc49 Onsite managers: join TheOnsiteManager and operate as a legally authorised agent of TheOnsiteManager: https:\/\/www.theonsitemanager.com.au\/join<\/a><\/p>\n