Nuisance communication in strata: when does “too many emails” become a by-law issue?
Every committee has dealt with difficult correspondence. Owners are entitled to raise concerns, ask questions, request records and challenge decisions. That is part of community titles living.
But what happens when correspondence becomes constant, repetitive, aggressive or impossible to manage? What if one owner’s emails begin consuming the time of volunteer committee members, body corporate managers and contractors? And what happens when artificial intelligence is used to generate increasingly long, legalistic and repetitive correspondence?
This is where “nuisance communication” has become one of the emerging pressure points in strata.
Section 167
The first difficulty is that section 167 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) is not always a neat fit for emails, letters, text messages or phone calls.
Section 167 is directed to an occupier using, or permitting the use of, a lot or common property in a way that causes a nuisance, hazard or unreasonable interference. That creates a threshold problem for communication cases as the nuisance generally arises from the content, volume and frequency of the communication, not from the physical use of the lot or common property.
That issue has been recognised in several adjudication decisions. In Drift Palm Cove [2021] QBCCMCmr 149, the adjudicator accepted that the correspondence was frustrating, but found that the body corporate had not established that the emails were a breach of section 167. The adjudicator noted that emails can be sent from anywhere and that, even if someone sits in their lot and types an offensive email, the nuisance arises from the contents and number of communications, not the use of the lot itself.
More recently, in Il Palazzo [2026] QBCCMCmr 82, the adjudicator again confirmed that section 167 is not well-designed to deal with communications between owners/occupiers and a body corporate.
The adjudicator explained that section 167, and the common law concept of nuisance underpinning it, require both the conduct and the effect of the conduct to be tied to the use of property. An email or text message will usually have the same effect whether it is sent from a lot, from outside the scheme, or read by the recipient in their apartment, at work or on a bus.
That does not mean committees are powerless. It does mean they need to be careful about the pathway they choose.
Communication by-laws
A properly drafted communication by-law can make a significant difference. In Tank Tower [2015] QBCCMCmr 322, the scheme had a by-law requiring owners and occupiers to communicate with the committee in a reasonable manner and not in any way which may become an annoyance or nuisance to committee members. The adjudicator found that the owner had breached that by-law. The volume, frequency, repetition and tone of the owner’s emails were not considered reasonable, and the adjudicator accepted that volunteer committee members and body corporate representatives should not be exposed to voluminous, repetitive and abusive communications.
The orders made in Tank Tower remain a useful example of what a communication protocol may look like in an appropriate case. The owner was required to communicate in writing by pre-paid post only, limited to one item per week, with each item capped at two pages and 1,000 words. Communications also had to be courteous and not abusive or offensive. The body corporate was permitted to disregard non-compliant communications and was not required to acknowledge every item of correspondence.
However, more recent decisions suggest that committees should not assume that broad communication control orders will automatically be made. In Il Palazzo, the adjudicator raised doubt about the source of power for an adjudicator to make orders prescribing or restricting the nature of communications between a body corporate and its members. The adjudicator also noted that there may be limits on a body corporate’s ability to create by-laws which expand its powers or diminish owners’ rights by rendering otherwise lawful conduct unlawful.
The practical distinction is important.
A committee may be able to decide, acting reasonably, that it will not substantively respond to offensive, pointless, voluminous or repetitive correspondence. That is different from dictating in advance what correspondence an owner is allowed to send. Committees should still review correspondence sufficiently to identify genuine statutory requests, motions, safety issues or matters that require action.
The evidence also matters. It is not enough to say “we are receiving too many emails”. In Drift Palm Cove, the adjudicator observed that volume alone would not amount to a nuisance. A stronger case will usually require a clear chronology showing the number of emails, the subject matter, repetition, tone, threats, demands for urgent action, copying of multiple recipients, re-agitation of issues already answered, and the administrative burden created.
And what about AI?
Artificial intelligence is adding a new dimension to this issue.
Current adjudication decisions do not yet appear to deal directly with AI-generated nuisance communication as a standalone by-law breach. However, the Commissioner’s Office is increasingly dealing with AI-generated material in applications and submissions.
In Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373, the adjudicator referred to the risk that generative AI may produce inaccurate, incomplete or outdated information, including fake cases, citations, quotes and non-existent legislation. The adjudicator found that reliance on non-existent or irrelevant case law, incorrect legislative provisions and unsubstantiated claims had impeded the application, increased the body corporate’s costs and justified a costs order.
Similarly, in Broadwater Tower [2026] QBCCMCmr 7, the adjudicator cautioned that AI tools regularly provide inaccurate and misleading information, and that this is no excuse for a party getting fundamental parts of a submission wrong.
We are likely on the cusp of AI-generated nuisance communication becoming a live strata issue. Committees are already seeing correspondence that appears formulaic, repetitive, legally overconfident and constantly shifting in scope.
AI can turn one grievance into multiple “formal notices”, repeated legal demands and lengthy correspondence based on misunderstood legislation. Used responsibly, AI may help owners communicate more clearly. Used irresponsibly, it can amplify conflict, increase costs and overwhelm volunteer committees.
The way forward
For bodies corporate, some practical steps might be warranted. These are:
Review the scheme’s by-laws. If there is no specific communication by-law, consider whether one should be added at the next by-law review!
keep a careful chronology of problematic communications. Record not only the volume, but also the repetition, tone, subject matter, recipients, demands and cost impact.
consider adopting a reasonable internal communication protocol. That protocol should not prevent owners from exercising statutory rights, but it can identify the proper point of contact, explain when a response will or will not be provided, and confirm that repetitive or abusive correspondence may be filed without response once genuine issues have been considered.
Finally, if enforcement becomes necessary, frame any proposed orders carefully and seek legal advice.
Nuisance communication is not just an inconvenience. It can drain body corporate resources, increase legal and administrative costs, and distract committees from the proper management of the scheme. But the response must be strategic. A good by-law, strong evidence, a reasonable protocol and proportionate enforcement remain the best tools for managing this increasingly common problem.
If you require assistance dealing with nuisance communication in your schemes, please do not hesitate to contact Elisha or Tom.
References:
1. Drift Palm Cove [2021] QBCCMCmr 149
2. Il Palazzo [2026] QBCCMCmr 82
3. Tank Tower [2015] QBCCMCmr 322
4. Sky Gardens [2025] QBCCMCmr 373
5. Broadwater Tower [2026] QBCCMCmr 7
6. Deagon Village [2018] QBCCMCmr 208
7. Addison Quays [2025] QBCCMCmr 42