- 09 Nov 2026
- 3 min read
- By Heidi Bayles, Special Counsel, Carter Newell Lawyers
Body corporate update - Dogs, lifts and the reasonableness of committee decisions
Pets are one of the most emotive issues in community titles schemes. For many owners, a dog is part of their household, while for others the prospect of sharing a lift with an animal is unwelcome. Body corporate committees are regularly asked to strike a balance between these interests. A recent decision of the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, Eclipse Apartments Maroochydore [2026] QBCCMCmr 393, shows how an adjudicator will approach a challenge to a condition attached to a pet approval.
Background
Ms Nikita Marsalek owns Lot 60 at Eclipse Apartments Maroochydore, a three-storey complex with 69 apartments served by a single lift. Lot 60 is on the top floor. In November 2025, the body corporate committee approved Ms Marsalek and her partner keeping their small dog under by-law 11, subject to conditions. One condition prohibited the dog from being taken in the lift.
Ms Marsalek argued that the condition was unreasonable and applied to the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management for the following orders:
- That the condition imposed by the body corporate prohibiting her dog from using the lift is unreasonable and of no effect; and
- That the body corporate must permit her and her partner to use the lift with their small 4 kg dog as required, subject to reasonable conditions (including that the dog is carried, placed in a secure carrier, or kept on a short leash when on common property, including in the lift).
- Ms Marsalek argued that the condition was unreasonable on the following basis:
- The condition imposed significant inconvenience, requiring a longer route of six flights of stairs, two locked gates and a walk through the basement car park around moving vehicles, which was particularly hazardous in the wet;
- She and her partner were planning to have a child and questioned how they would manage a pram and a dog on that route;
- There was no evidence to justify the condition beyond an unsubstantiated story that another dog had once urinated in the lift; and
- Other dogs in the complex used the lift.
The Legislative Framework
By-law 11 provided:
“(1) Subject to section 181 of the Act, the Occupier of a Lot must not, without the Body Corporate’s written approval
(a) bring or keep an animal on the Lot or the common property
(b) permit an invitee to bring or keep an animal on the Lot or the common property.
(2) The Occupier must obtain the Body Corporate’s written approval before bringing, or permitting an invitee to bring, an animal onto the Lot. The consent may be given or refused without reason, and if given may be on conditions. Consent may be withdrawn at any time and the pet must leave scheme land.”
However, that breadth of discretion is not unlimited.
Section 169B(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (the Act) provides:
“If a by-law requires the written approval of the body corporate for the scheme, or the committee for the body corporate, to keep or bring an animal on the lot or the common property, the body corporate, or the committee—
(a) must, after receiving a request for approval, within the period prescribed by the regulation module applying to the scheme decide whether to grant the approval; and
(b) may, in writing, grant the approval subject to conditions that are, in the circumstances, reasonable and appropriate…”
Therefore, the main issue for the adjudicator to consider was not whether the committee was entitled to impose conditions, but whether the conditions imposed by the committee were unreasonable.
The committee relied upon a standard set of pet conditions adopted in March 2023 to prevent animals fouling or damaging common property, and to minimise unwanted interactions with owners who have allergies, phobias or other concerns with being in close proximity to animals. The committee emphasised that the complex was only a three-storey complex, not a high-rise building, and has only one lift for 69 apartments.
The committee argued that the conditions were a reasonable and appropriate way to balance competing interests and minimise the risk of adverse impacts.
The committee gave evidence that owners who breached the conditions by taking dogs in the lift were told to stop, and that they did. The adjudicator stated that he had no reason to doubt that explanation.
The committee acknowledged that it had temporarily permitted an owner to take a dog in the lift while that owner recovered from major surgery, however, that was in contrast to Ms Marsalek’s request for the dog to use the lift indefinitely.
Other owners of the complex opposed Ms Marsalek’s application on the basis that they believed the condition struck the right balance between the right of owners to keep pets in their homes and the others’ desire not to have to encounter pets, noting that one owner was allergic to dog dander.
The decision
The adjudicator accepted that the arrangement was inconvenient for Ms Marsalek, however, noted that acting reasonably within the community titles context does not always imply even-handedness or a recognition of the wishes of others and committees are nonetheless expected to weigh competing personal rights against community interests.
In the adjudicator's view, the committee had done precisely that by balancing the interests of owners who would like to have pets with the preferences of owners who do not wish to encounter them by keeping animals out of the only lift available.
The adjudicator noted that the committee gave priority to ensuring other owners are not required to encounter a dog in the only lift available, however, there was nothing clearly unreasonable about the approach to that decision.
The committee mentioned the onsite manager had to clean the lift on a couple of occasions in the last year after a dog had urinated in it, however, the adjudicator noted that this does not appear to have been a significant basis for the committee’s decision to impose the condition as they had already decided in 2023 that dogs should generally be excluded from the lift.
The adjudicator noted that the fact that the committee has adopted a general policy about dogs in the lift might potentially indicate that it is acting unreasonably by failing to consider the individual merits of each request to keep a dog at the scheme, however, the committee had waived the condition for an owner after major surgery, indicating it had considered individual circumstances. However, Ms Marsalek had not claimed any special circumstances affecting her ability to use the stairs.
The adjudicator also addressed Ms Marsalek’s submission that she planned to have a baby, however, noted that this was not the present situation. The adjudicator noted that Ms Marsalek had sought the indefinite removal of the condition prohibiting her dog from using the lift, not a temporary relaxation while managing a young child. The adjudicator observed that if the condition later became unworkable, they could approach the committee at that time.
In those circumstances, Ms Marsalek’s application was dismissed.
Conclusion
Whilst this decision relates to the reasonableness of a decision by a body corporate committee to impose conditions relating to pets on common property, agents are reminded of the relevant provisions in the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (RTRAA), which relate to pets in rental properties.
Section 184B of the RTRAA provides that a tenant may keep a pet at the premises only with the approval of the lessor, however, authorisation to keep a pet at the premises is subject to a body corporate by-law or other law relating to keeping animals at the premises.
In accordance with section 184D of the RTRAA, the lessor must respond to the tenant’s request for approval within 14 days and state whether the lessor approves or refuses the tenant’s request. If the lessor approves the tenant’s request subject to conditions, the lessor must state the conditions of the approval. If the lessor refuses the tenant’s request, the lessor must state the grounds for the refusal and the reasons for the refusal.
Pursuant to section 184E of the RTRAA, lessors are only allowed to refuse a pet request on the following basis:
- keeping the pet would exceed a reasonable number of animals being kept at the premises;
- the premises are unsuitable for keeping the pet because of a lack of appropriate fencing, open space or another thing necessary to humanely accommodate the pet;
- keeping the pet is likely to cause damage to the premises or inclusions that could not practicably be repaired for a cost that is less than the amount of the rental bond for the premises;
- keeping the pet would pose an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of a person, including, for example, because the pet is venomous;
- keeping the pet would contravene a law;
- keeping the pet would contravene a body corporate by-law applying to the premises;
- the animal stated in the request is not a pet;
- if the premises is a moveable dwelling premises – keeping the pet would contravene a condition of a licence applying to the premises; and
- another ground prescribed by regulation.
This decision highlights that agents should ensure that their lessor clients are acting reasonably in their decisions regarding pet approvals and imposing conditions. Tribunals will test whether a lessor has weighed competing interests reasonably, and they will look for a rational basis for the decision.
Read more about property management: The risk of home businesses for landlords.
Or browse our suite of property management articles.
You might also like
View All Articles
View All Articles
Start your Real Estate Career
Our approach to training is career focussed to support all members of the profession.
From accredited training to start your career to upskilling courses that advance your career, the REIQ keeps you a real step ahead.
Need help? 1300 697 347 or contact us