Committee Communications Without a Formal Resolution
- leigh_oliver
- Mar 25
- 3 min read
Case: The Village Chancellor Park [2026] QBCCMCmr 87
Background
The adjudicator decision in The Village Chancellor Park [2026] QBCCMCmr 87 (20 March 2026) considered an interesting and very practical governance question for body corporate committees:
Does a committee need a formal resolution before sending a letter to owners expressing concerns about a contractor?
This dispute arose between the committee of The Village Chancellor Park and the caretaking contractors, who were also lot owners in the scheme.
The committee sent a letter to owners raising concerns about the caretaker’s performance and inviting feedback from owners. The caretakers argued the letter was invalid because the committee had not formally resolved to send it, and that it misrepresented the body corporate’s position.
They sought orders including:
A declaration the letter was not validly authorised
A corrective notice to owners
Orders requiring future communications to be supported by committee resolutions
The adjudicator ultimately dismissed the application.
Key Issues Considered by the Adjudicator
The adjudicator looked at two main questions:
Did the committee act unreasonably?
Was a formal committee resolution required before sending the letter?
Was the Committee Acting Unreasonably?
The adjudicator confirmed an important principle:
A body corporate is not acting unreasonably simply because another committee might have acted differently.
The committee had genuine concerns about services being paid for by owners, and the adjudicator considered it reasonable for a committee to communicate with owners about the performance of a contractor.
Importantly, the letter:
Expressed concerns
Invited feedback
Did not make a formal decision
Did not trigger enforcement action
Because of this, the adjudicator did not consider the committee’s conduct unreasonable.
Did the Committee Need a Formal Resolution?
This is the most important takeaway from the decision.
The adjudicator made a very useful distinction:
A body corporate generally needs a resolution when:
Spending money
Raising levies
Authorising works
Issuing breach notices
Making decisions affecting rights or obligations
However, a committee does not necessarily need a formal resolution simply to express a view or communicate with owners, provided the communication:
Does not commit the body corporate to a course of action
Does not affect legal rights or obligations
Is not exercising a formal power
This is a very practical and important governance point.
In simple terms:
Action | Resolution Required? |
Approve maintenance works | Yes |
Raise levies | Yes |
Issue breach notice | Yes |
Enter contract | Yes |
Send general information letter | Not necessarily |
Express committee concerns | Not necessarily |
Seek owner feedback | Not necessarily |
The adjudicator stated that the committee could formally resolve to send such a letter, but was not required to.
Procedural Defect Was “Trivial”
Even if there had been a procedural issue, the adjudicator found it was trivial and could be disregarded.
This reinforces another common theme in adjudications:
Not every technical mistake invalidates committee actions.
Adjudicators often look at substance over technicalities.
Relationship Breakdown Was the Real Issue
One of the most interesting comments from the adjudicator was this:
The applicants seem overly concerned with trivial instances of committee non-compliance. Plainly, the root of the problem lies in their deteriorating relationship with the committee.
This is very common in strata disputes — governance arguments often arise after relationships break down.
Adjudicators regularly point out that dispute resolution is not designed to manage interpersonal conflicts between committees and contractors.
Key Takeaways for Committees (Very Important)
This decision provides some very practical guidance:
Committees should:
Be careful when communicating concerns about contractors
Stick to factual information
Avoid making formal decisions outside meetings
Consider passing a resolution for significant communications
Remember they can communicate with owners without always passing a resolution
Focus on acting reasonably, not perfectly
But committees should still be cautious:
Even though a resolution may not be legally required, best practice is still to approve major communications at a committee meeting.
This avoids disputes like this one.
Final Outcome
The adjudicator found:
The committee did not act unreasonably
The letter did not require a formal committee resolution
Any procedural defect was trivial
The requested orders were unnecessary
The application was dismissed.
Why This Case Matters
This is an important decision because many committees worry about:
Emails to owners
Newsletters
Updates
Contractor performance communications
General scheme communications
This case confirms that not every communication requires a formal committee resolution, particularly where the committee is simply expressing views or seeking feedback and not making a formal decision.
Simple Rule for Committees
A useful rule of thumb:
If the communication commits the body corporate to something → you need a resolution.If the communication is just information, opinion, or feedback → you may not need one.
Comments