Resources Property law changes open way for resolving Building Management Statement disputes

Changes to property laws in Queensland have opened the way for previously logjammed disputes involving Building Management Statements to finally be cleared.

The Property Law Act 2023 (PLA) introduces a suite of reforms aimed at modernising property law and improving disclosure and dispute resolution mechanisms. Among its most significant additions is section 181, which commenced on 1 August 2025 and provides the Queensland courts with the power to modify or extinguish easements or covenants, including the Building Management Statement itself (BMS).

Understanding the role of section 181

Section 181 of the PLA is designed to address situations where the BMS has become obsolete, impractical or unjust. This provision is particularly relevant in the context of BMS disputes, where parties may be unable to reach consensus on amendments due to procedural or relational deadlocks.

Under subsection (3)(c) of section 181, the court may intervene if:

• The modification or extinguishment cannot be obtained through the usual amendment process due to the lack of unanimous consent from all parties;
• The proposed change is just and equitable; and
• The change is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

This judicial pathway offers a critical safety valve for schemes where entrenched disagreements or procedural barriers prevent necessary updates to shared arrangements.

Application to modify or extinguish Building Management Statements

A BMS is a legal instrument, registered with the Land Titles Office, that governs the shared use and maintenance of facilities such as lifts, car parks and fire systems across multiple lots (including a volumetric lot) and schemes. These arrangements are often complex, and disputes can arise over cost-sharing, access rights, or operational responsibilities.

Previously, resolving such disputes required unanimous agreement among all parties to amend the BMS. Section 181 now allows a party with an interest in the burdened land to apply to the court for relief, provided the statutory criteria are met, namely that it is just and equitable and reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
The above is a subjective test and will vary on a case-by-case basis.

Factors that a Court will consider include:

• Whether the covenant or easement is obsolete due to changes in land use or surrounding character.
• Whether the BMS’s continued existence impedes reasonable use of the land or lacks practical benefit.
• Whether the proposed modification is not contrary to public interest.
• The purpose and circumstances surrounding the creation of the BMS.
• Whether the proposed amendments are a reasonable remedy for the lot in question.
• Whether there are other remedies available that can adequately resolve the issues surrounding the BMS.
• The conduct and agreement of the parties throughout the use of the BMS.
• The intention of the parties at the time of creation for the BMS.
• Whether compensation can or is required to be paid to any party who suffers loss or disadvantage from the proposed amendments.

Practical implications for strata managers and lot owners

For strata managers and lot owners involved in layered or mixed-use developments, section 181 offers a powerful tool to resolve long-standing disputes. It shifts the dynamic from rigid procedural requirements to a more flexible, equitable framework overseen by the courts.

Appropriate measures still need to be taken before commencing an application pursuant to section 181, however, it will be up to the applicant to substantiate not only the issues complained of in the BMS, but also to address and justify why the changes sought are reasonable and should be made.

Subject to the relevant circumstances, third parties such as engineers or surveyors may need to be engaged to justify the reasonableness of the proposed changes.
Put simply, the purpose of section 181 is not designed to address minor gripes or disputes amongst lot owners, but rather to address not insignificant issues or inconsistencies within a BMS.

For those navigating BMS disputes, this provision offers a clear and structured pathway to resolution – one that balances legal certainty with practical flexibility