Question: Can lot owners refuse to pay a special levy introduced at the first meeting when the developer used a power of attorney clause to exercise their votes?
The power of attorney clause in our purchase contract states that, for the first year, the developer can exercise our voting rights. At the first meeting, a special levy for security fees was introduced to cover the remaining cost of the security company’s contract. The developer engaged this company during construction, and the security company owner is related to the developer.
Do lot owners have the grounds to refuse to pay this special levy for security?
Answer: This will depend on the terms of the power of attorney and several other issues. Legal advice is required.
This is all going to depend on the terms of the power of attorney itself and then representations made (or not made) about the likely expenses of the body corporate during the sales process and then in the disclosure documents themselves. There is no black and white answer to this one, but it is something that legal advice should be sought on.
This post appears in the October 2025 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Frank Higginson
Redchip Strata Law
E: frank.higginson@hyneslegal.com.au
P: 07 3193 0500
Regarding the story above “…a Show Cause notice relating to a violation of the DA by the developer.” Would this not be something that the Body Corp could submit to the QBCC. If the builder/developer has caused the problem, why would the Body corp be responsible at all?
Hi Mike
We have received the following response from Todd Garsden, Hynes Legal:
There are two separate obligations here.
The first is the body corporate’s obligation to maintain the common property in good condition – that obligation exists whether or not the cause of the issue was “gifted” to them from the developer.
The second is the developer’s / builder’s obligation to the body corporate to hand over the scheme in a proper state.
The second obligation here is harder to enforce and if it can’t be enforced that doesn’t mean the first obligation falls away.
The body corporate may well have rights against the developer (whether that is via the QBCC or otherwise) but firstly, it has to meet its own obligations (even if it can’t recover from the developer).