Most strata disputes don’t begin with bad behaviour.

They begin with an issue that never quite gets resolved.

The adjudicator’s decision in Bower Lodge [2026] QBCCMCmr 1 is a useful reminder that while owners are entitled to raise concerns, how those concerns are pursued matters. In particular, repeated, lengthy emails can cross the line from engagement into a breach of a scheme’s by-laws — even when the sender believes they are simply seeking answers.

More importantly, the case highlights a far more effective way for owners and committees to resolve ongoing issues: use the motion process to force a decision.

What the Adjudicator Decided

The dispute in Bower Lodge was not about whether the owner’s concerns were valid. The adjudicator made that clear from the outset.

The application focused on the owner’s communications with the body corporate, which had included:

• Emails sent over many years (dating back to around 2009),
• more than 200 emails in 2024–2025 alone,
• correspondence that was often long, repetitive and revisiting historic issues, and
• matters being raised again after the committee believed they had already been addressed.

The owner did not dispute the volume or length of the emails. She said she continued writing because she felt she had not received proper answers.

The adjudicator found that:

• Individual emails were not necessarily abusive or aggressive, but
• taken together, the volume, length and repetition of the correspondence was objectively unreasonable, and
• the overall pattern amounted to an annoyance and nuisance, breaching the scheme’s communications by-law.

Importantly, the adjudicator noted that:

• Bodies corporate are not required to respond to every email, and
• volunteer committee members are not required to tolerate a constant barrage of correspondence.

To address the issue, the adjudicator made practical orders regulating written communication, including:

• A single nominated email address,
• a limit of one email per week, and
• a 1,000-word limit per email.

The Practical Lesson: Email Is Not a Decision-Making Process

The most useful takeaway from Bower Lodge is not about email limits. It is about how decisions are made in a body corporate.

• Email is informal.
• Email invites discussion.
• Email does not require an outcome.

If an owner wants a clear answer — yes or no — the correct mechanism is a motion, not ongoing correspondence.

Repeated emails often backfire:

• They frustrate committees,
• they drain scheme resources, and
• as Bower Lodge shows, they can ultimately be characterised as unreasonable conduct.

A motion, by contrast:

• Defines the decision being sought,
• requires the committee or owners to vote, and
• produces a recorded outcome.

What Should Have Happened Instead

One issue raised in the Bower Lodge material involved the removal of awnings that had reportedly been approved by the committee many years earlier yet continued to be questioned repeatedly by email.

That type of issue is ideally suited to a motion.

Below are examples of how the same concerns could have been resolved cleanly and early.

Example 1: Confirm a Historic Approval

Issue: An owner believes a past approval was incorrect or unclear.

Motion:

That the body corporate confirms the committee approval granted on [date] for Lot [x] to remove the existing awnings at the owner’s cost remains valid and that no further action is required.

Outcome:
The approval is either confirmed or reopened formally — but the issue stops resurfacing informally.

Example 2: Decide Whether the Matter Is Closed

Issue: An owner believes an issue has not been properly dealt with.

Motion:

That the body corporate resolves that all matters relating to the removal of awnings at Lot [x] have been appropriately addressed and that no further investigation or action is required.

Outcome:
If passed, the issue has an endpoint. If lost, the body corporate must identify what further action will occur.

Example 3: Require Information Once

Issue: The real concern is access to documents or explanations.

Motion:

That the committee provides owners with copies of all approvals, conditions and correspondence held by the body corporate relating to the awning removal at Lot [x] within 14 days.

Outcome:
One obligation, one deadline — instead of repeated requests by email.

Even though the Bower Lodge Body Corporate:

• Made and recorded meeting decisions accurately;
• Proceeded with self – resolution with the party concern, Excessive communication communications continued.

The Bower Lodge Body Corporate followed the advice of the BCCM and:

• Proceeded with the Conciliation process – one party did not agree to the desired outcomes.
• Proceeded with the adjudication process.

A Simple Test Before Sending Another Email

Before writing again, ask:

• What exactly do I want decided?
• Can it be answered with a yes or no?
• If the answer matters, why isn’t this a motion?

If you can frame the issue as an action the body corporate can approve, refuse or confirm, it probably belongs in a motion.

• How to draft motions:
  https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/committees-meetings/general-meetings/drafting-motions.
• How to submit motions (committee or general meeting):
  https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/committees-meetings/general-meetings.

What Would You Do?

• Engage the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, or
• keep emailing and hope for a different response, or
• submit one clear motion that forces a recorded decision?

Bower Lodge shows that persistence alone is not the answer.

Clarity comes from using the process designed to make decisions.

Article Contributed by Wayne Cranley, Strata Community Manager at Archers the Strata Professionals.

The post WHEN EMAILS BECOME A BY-LAW BREACH appeared first on Smart Strata | Body Corporate Management.