
Property & Body Corporate · 24 August 2023
Strata Reforms: Introducing the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
A key reform will reduce the termination threshold for community title schemes from 100 per cent to 75 per cent where there are economic reasons to terminate.

Originally announced earlier this year by the Queensland Government as a key measure arising from the 2022 Housing Summit, on 24 August 2023 the Queensland Government introduced the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (the Bill) into the Queensland Parliament.
The Bill is intended to reform Queensland's body corporate legislation, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, including by allowing for termination of uneconomic community title schemes to facilitate renewal and redevelopment.
Termination of schemes
A key reform in the Bill will reduce the current termination threshold in Queensland from 100 per cent (unanimous resolution without dissent) to 75 per cent where there are economic reasons to terminate a community title scheme.
This change is intended to address barriers to accessing housing supply throughout the State, and means that a single owner or small group of owners in a scheme cannot prevent termination of the scheme — which may even be in an unsafe building. The reform will benefit developers who have been roadblocked in their attempts to redevelop land, as well as bodies corporate staring down the barrel of costly structural repairs and maintenance for older and smaller schemes.
Economic reasons to terminate
Under the amended legislation, an economic reason required to terminate a scheme will include instances where it is not economically viable, or will not be economically viable within five years, to carry out maintenance or repairs to the common property of the scheme for which the body corporate is responsible. This could be very relevant to older apartment blocks subject to decay, particularly in coastal locations.
The Bill includes a range of safeguards for owners, including requirements for professional reports, meetings, notice periods, minimum compensation requirements and dispute resolution pathways, in order to balance the risk of exposure to unnecessary scheme terminations. For instance, should there not be an economic reason to terminate and any owners dissent, an order of the District Court will be required.
Other reforms
Other amendments in the Bill include the ability for bodies corporate to:
- make by-laws to prohibit smoking in outdoor and communal areas, to prevent exposure to second-hand smoke;
- prevent the banning of pets, except in specific circumstances, and permit reasonable conditions on pet approvals (such as transport through communal areas in a carry cage, pet pram, or on a leash); and
- tow away vehicles that are preventing access or causing a hazard.
Sunset dates for off-the-plan contracts
The Bill also proposes reforms to the sunset dates for off-the-plan contracts. The sunset date is the date by which settlement of the contract of sale must occur, commonly anywhere from three years to five and a half years after the contract date for land under a scheme. If settlement has not occurred by the sunset date, either the buyer or seller may be able to terminate the contract.
The reforms will limit when sunset clauses may be invoked by sellers and developers to terminate off-the-plan contracts, namely:
- with the written consent of the buyer;
- under an order of the Supreme Court; or
- in another situation prescribed by regulation.
Once the Bill is passed, it is anticipated that the amendments will come into effect soon after.
More insights
All insights
Commercial Leases: When is Time of the Essence?
If a commercial lease does not contain a 'time is of the essence' clause, yet still imposes timeframes on the parties, are those timeframes essential? The Court of Appeal has an answer.
Read
Non-Party Costs: Can a costs order be made against a party not named in Court proceedings?
While the general rule is that only parties named in litigation are liable for costs, the courts have a discretion to depart from it. WOHB Pty Ltd v Williams shows when.
Read
Default Judgements: To Review or Not to Review, that is the Question…
A practical guide for practitioners considering whether to review an erroneous default judgment — and what a successful Rule 791 application looks like.
ReadGet in touch
Talk to a lawyer who will actually pick up the phone.
Tell us what you are dealing with. We will tell you, plainly, what your options are and what it is likely to cost.
