CITATION:	The Body Corporate of Tradition CTS 32885 v The Body Corporate of Coomera Waters CTS 29693 [2012] QCAT 394	

PARTIES:	The Body Corporate of Tradition Community  Title Scheme 32885
(Applicant)	
	v	
	The Body Corporate of Coomera Waters Community Title Scheme 29693
(Respondent)	

APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCL110-11	

MATTER TYPE:	Other civil dispute matters	

HEARING DATE:	27 August 2012	

HEARD AT:	Brisbane	

DECISION OF:	Dr J R Forbes, Member	

DELIVERED ON:	30 August 2012	

DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane	

ORDERS MADE:	The Respondent Body Corporate of Coomera Waters Community Title Scheme is at liberty to file and serve an amended response to the application of the Body Corporate of Coomera Waters Community Title Scheme (including, if so desired, expert evidence) on or before 30 September 2012.	

CATCHWORDS:	Body corporate – application for adjustment of an interest schedule lot entitlement – application unsupported by expert evidence – Applicant permitted to remedy defect – Respondent seeks to amend its response – Applicant opposes that request – natural justice – liberty to amend granted

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32

Vyncan Pty Ltd, Hartley v Body Corporate for Nautilus on the Esplanade CTS 683 [2009] QCCBCM 30
Higham v Body Corporate for the Palms 3 Warana [2011] QCAT 21
The Body Corporate of Tradition Community Title Scheme 32885 v The Body
Corporate of Community Waters Titles Scheme 29693 [2012] QCAT 26	

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]	This application, under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, for adjustment of an interest schedule lot entitlement, first came before me in January 2012.
[2]	I then found that it was not supported by appropriate expert evidence, and that, according to precedent, it might simply be dismissed.  However, I considered that, in the interests of justice, the applicant (Tradition) should have a reasonable opportunity to obtain and adduce evidence in support of its claim.  
[3]	Accordingly, I adjourned the application, and made these orders:
a)	The Applicant is at liberty to file and serve upon the Respondent, within forty two (42) days of the date of service of these orders upon it, a relevant market determination by a duly qualified valuer; 
b)	In default of compliance with Order [(a)], above, the application for adjustment to interest schedule lot entitlements shall, without further order, be dismissed. 
[4]	On or about 6 February 2012 I extended the time for compliance with order 3(a), above, from 42 to 49 days.
[5]	On 21 February 2012 the said time for compliance was extended, by consent, to 31 July 2012.
[6]	On or about 20 June 2012 Tradition filed and served upon the respondent (Coomera) a current market value assessment of Coomera Waters Village and Resort, prepared by Ashley Forbes, certified practising valuer, for Landmark White (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd (Landmark White), dated 24 May 2012.
[7]	On or about 7 August 2012 Coomera wrote to Tradition, requesting an extension of time for the purpose of responding to the valuation made by Landmark White.
[8]	On 14 August 2012 Tradition refused that request.
[9]	On 16 August 2012 the solicitors for Coomera applied to the Tribunal for directions that Coomera be at liberty to file and serve one copy of an amended response to the Tradition’s application on or before 30 September 2012.
[10]	As a matter of elementary procedural fairness, Coomera is entitled to such an order.  When the orders of 23 January 2012 were made, it was neither intended nor suggested that, if Tradition availed itself of the concession then granted, the evidence would thereupon be closed.  Any such order would have been improper, unsustainable, and patently open to appeal.  Indeed, the original decision clearly contemplated that, if Tradition adduced expert evidence, then Coomera would be entitled, in response, to do the same:
It is not incumbent upon [Coomera], in the first place, to collect and adduce evidence for [Tradition’s] benefit, although it may, of course, tender evidence of its own, if [Tradition] has already done so.
[11]	It is remarkable that a party who has received two extensions of time to adduce its own material – one such extension, by consent, for no less than five months – should see fit to oppose a request for little more than one month to respond thereto.  Coomera’s application shall be granted.
ORDER
[1]	The Respondent Body Corporate of Coomera Waters Community Title Scheme is at liberty to file and serve an amended response to the application of the Body Corporate of Coomera Waters Community Title Scheme (including, if so desired, expert evidence) on or before 30 September 2012.