Sydney Today, April 4th, Australian Eastern Time, the expert Clayton Glenister's legal opinion on the "aggressive" body corporate fees of the Gold Coast is: "Tell them:'You are dreaming'". Challenge the High Court is purely the movie "The Castle"Romantic move" in ".

The amendment of the law a year ago caused many apartment owners to have to pay huge owner committee fees, which was nearly 200% higher than before. Many property owners have signed to initiate a class action lawsuit and are obtaining legal advice from a Queensland legal master.

But Mr Glenister is one of the members of MBA Lawyers. He believes that although the amendment of the law is absurd, the drafting is rough, and in some respects unfair, he thinks it is impossible to challenge a high court.

Glenister said: "This is not a'castle'. Everyone wants to get their own rights in the high court, but unfortunately, I think their success in this challenge can reach such a high level. It is impossible just because people feel it. If it is not good, it means that it is against the Constitution. Local laws do interfere with people’s freedom. This is an example. But it cannot be considered as against the Constitution.”

"To prove that it is unconstitutional, you must really prove that Queensland's legislature actually does not have the power to make those laws. So it is difficult." Glenister believes that there are two arguments for overturning this rule: it is unconstitutional. Second, it violates the Legislative Standards Act.

"What they are trying to argue is that it is unconstitutional because the regulation is retroactive. The amendment to the law regarding the owner's fee came into effect on April 4 last year. But it can be traced back to the 14-year-old regulation. But this does not prove that it is unconstitutional. Moreover, they believe that the legislation clearly violates some relevant provisions of the Legislative Standards Act. However, it cannot be determined to be invalid."

"I think the only way to successfully solve this problem is for the state government to introduce (promulgate) a new law." He pointed out that the change of this law has affected more than 4 business committees in Queensland, involving more than 30 people. The amendment of the law caused conflicts with every property committee there and caused them pain.” (Ivy)

Original: . .