Daisy and Baxter were bound for a home in an apartment complex at the southern end of the Gold Coast until their entry was barred.

Their future neighbours did not want them and used their legal authority to keep them off the premises for now – at least.

Daisy and Baxter are dogs. Daisy is a 25kg cross-breed pooch, Baxter is a 15kg spoodle and their owners made the mistake of buying into the apartment complex believing they could either persuade or force its body corporate into changing by-laws to allow them entry.

Such disputes are the frontline of how we are going to deal with each other as we move into a society where land scarcity makes high-rise living more common.

Disputes that once could be settled by two neighbours over a back fence now quickly involve multiple parties and greater considerations of disruptive influences. Pet ownership is at the heart of this. And it can only be resolved by rules that limit what pets and their owners can do.

The building Daisy and Baxter’s owners bought into has rules that limit occupants to one pet of a maximum weight of 10kg. Two dogs with a collective weight of 40kg clearly tests those rules.

The battle to house Daisy and Baxter at Oceanview Terrace in Coolangatta has been going on for more than a year and still continues despite a lengthy adjudication from the Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commission, a little known but increasingly busy branch of the state Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The dogs’ owners, David and Rachael Ambler, took their case there after failing to persuade their body corporate that the dogs would not damage communal property nor disrupt other residents.

The case against them canvassed the range of reasonable concerns people have about dogs – fear of being bitten, allergy to dog hair, the likelihood of noise – and was supported by a body corporate by-law that limits the number of dogs and their weight.

The response from the aggrieved owners was that the dogs would largely stay inside the apartment and would only be taken on common property if on a leash. Their evidence to the tribunal was that the dogs were “old and timid” and no threat or nuisance to anyone.

Their opponents thought differently and, according to the adjudication, extended their criticism to the Amblers, characterising them as “reckless and greedy” and having “acted unreasonably in purchasing their unit expecting to be able to change the by-laws”.

The upshot: Adjudicator Pulsford found the body corporate had barred Daisy and Baxter as allowed under its by-laws but that the by-laws themselves were unreasonable and have to be changed within three months.

Even this does not guarantee a home at Oceanview Terrace for the two dogs but it does offer them (and their owners) some hope, just as it offers hope to those who don’t want them on the premises.

Which is a lot more hope than the 120,000 homeless people on lengthy waiting lists across the country.

This story is a small window into the complex and overlapping problems our society confronts every day. The fate of Daisy and Baxter is trivial beside the plight of families sleeping in cars and children going to school without breakfast.

But it’s a real problem for the dogs’ owners – just as it’s a problem for the other occupants of Oceanview Terrace who thought they were living in a dog-free zone.

Our response as a society tends to be to get angry more quickly but we really need to just be more patient and insistent on solving the big problems, hoping goodwill can solve more of the small problems.

The Body Corporate and Community Management Commission is the stop-off point when those problems get beyond goodwill and it’s going to become a busier and busier place as we all live higher and close and in need of the wisdom of Solomon.

(I wrote about another messy case

A tale of neighbours good and bad – and why it all depends on your point of view

at the BCCM last year. It involved erection of an unsightly temporary fence that blocked floor views from Brisbane’s RiverPlace apartment building across to the Story Bridge. In latest developments, the tribunal has just ordered removal of the fence. Stay tuned.)