12–Apr–2026
Northmarque
In short:
- The statement in this question that, ‘In November, the committee voted to appoint BC Systems on a 12-month contract starting 1 December’ is factually incorrect and not supported by evidence.
- This question reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a body corporate engages a body corporate manager, and specifically how a tender or request-for-proposal process works.
When the committee sought a new body corporate manager, prospective providers were invited to submit proposals. It is standard practice for a tenderer to include a pro forma contract with their submission – often with assumed commencement dates based on the tender timeline. That document is a proposal, not an executed agreement. No contract comes into force until both parties have formally agreed to its terms and signed it.
The committee took appropriate advice throughout this process and acted in accordance with that advice at every step. The outcome was an interim arrangement for the provision of administrative services – properly authorised by the committee, which is empowered to engage service providers on behalf of the body corporate.
It is worth noting the distinction between an ordinary engagement of a body corporate manager to provide administrative services, and the more significant arrangement where a body corporate manager is appointed to assume the functions of the committee itself. The latter requires a special resolution at a general meeting. The former does not – and that is the arrangement the committee put in place.
The AGM on 15 April is the appropriate point at which owners consider the ongoing appointment. That is exactly how the process is supposed to work.
There is nothing unusual about this process, and nothing that required broader owner communication at the time, although the committee did communicate with owners regularly and appropriately during the transition.