Hynes Legal is now Redchip Strata Law — learn more

Case Study: By-law overreach stalls at a lot’s front door

Article by

admin

Published on

September 1, 2026

Piermonde, Cairns
Decision: August 2026

[2026] QBCCMCmr 273

Situation

A body corporate sought to register an updated Community Management Statement (CMS) that included a new by-law that regulated the charging of lithium battery devices in the scheme. A lot owner objected to the by-law, arguing it was oppressive and unreasonable. The adjudicator issued an interim order restraining the body corporate from proceeding with the new CMS until the application was decided.

Background

At an extraordinary general meeting, the body corporate resolved to adopt an updated set of by-laws, including a new by-law to regulate charging electronic device lithium batteries in lots and on common property.

A lot owner objected to the by-law, arguing that it was in part oppressive and unreasonable, and it was therefore unlawful.

The practical outcome of the new by-law represented an overreach by the body corporate that sought to control what took place inside individual lots.

The new by-law sought to impose restrictions on charging lithium batteries in lots and elsewhere on scheme property.

Included in the wording were provisions that restricted the charging of devices such that they were not be left to charge in a lot unattended or overnight; the device was to be removed from the charger when fully charged; and the charger was to be removed from the general-purpose outlet.

The applicant said that while a body corporate could reasonably regulate safety hazards, a blanket prohibition on charging devices inside private lots was oppressive.

They argued a by-law must be capable of being monitored and enforced; however, a body corporate did not have the right to enter private lots to inspect whether a resident had left a vacuum or telephone charger plugged into a wall socket.

What was the outcome?

The adjudicator found that the applicant had presented an arguable case that the proposed new by-law sought to regulate electronic-device charging to an unreasonable extent and therefore may be invalid.

They ordered that the body corporate be restrained from lodging the new CMS containing the relevant new by-law pending final orders.

The adjudicator noted that members of the body corporate had met separately with the applicant with proposed new wording for a by-law governing battery charging, with which the applicant was satisfied. They commended the Committee members for working to resolve the issue in this manner.

What this means

The interim order reinforces the notion that the power of a body corporate to control goings-on in a scheme is limited once you cross a person’s front door – it is not the job of a body corporate to police what happens inside an individual’s lot.

When it comes to safety around recharging lithium batteries, it may be that the industry will need to look to the Queensland Fire Service or insurers for guidance on how best to manage the potential hazards.

The end result will hinge on the final determination of the matter, but it is rare for an adjudicator to do a complete about-face on an interim decision of this nature.

Get real strata advice from lawyers with real experience.

People often tell us that we don’t seem like lawyers. We make a point to have real conversations with our clients in everyday language. At our core, we know that success is built on relationships.

LET’S TALK