She can threaten all she wants – let her.  If she can’t attend a meeting without bringing a proxy with her, and then can’t conduct herself reasonably when she does attend, I don’t fancy her chances at NCAT.

She doesn’t have much of a case anyway.  She was invited to leave to compose herself before she got into further trouble – but even in the unlikely event that she could have run a case for being denied her right to be at the meeting she had her proxy there to make sure she didn’t miss anything.  If both she and her proxy left, that was their decision.

Owners have the right to attend meetings but they don’t have the right to constantly disrupt them to pursue their own agenda.

Perhaps next time you could have the Standing Orders adopted as a by-law then send her a Notice To Comply so that any further disruption can lead to her being fined.

You could raise the issue for mediation at Fair Trading with a view to seeking orders at NCAT (under  Section 232)  that this owner agrees not to disrupt meetings and to only send a proxy to vote on her behalf when she is not there to do so herself.  She will probably ignore the mediation but that’s an obligatory first step. The penalties for breaching NCAT orders are pretty severe.

Technically, the owner can specify in her proxy authority which motions she wishes the proxy to vote on.  However there is nothing in the Act that says who can talk to a motion and who can’t.

But let’s turn this around and ask what happens if you say “no” and insist that the proxy either speaks for the owner through the entirety of the meeting or remains silent.

Otherwise, that the proxy could be required to leave the room while the owner is speaking to her previously advised chosen issues as the proxy has no right to be there except as a proxy. 

Obviously, this owner will go ballistic at this and will potentially disrupt the meeting, but then what?  The only recourse she has is to claim that she was denied her rights to attend and to vote (which she wasn’t). 

Even if she had been denied her vote, she would still have to prove to the Tribunal that it would have made a difference to the outcome.

Her only other recourse is to have the committee or individual members sacked for mismanagement of the scheme – clearly that is unlikely to fly either.

I would be tempted to say enough is enough, it’s your committees opinion that her desire to speak and vote, alternating selectively with her proxy, is intended solely to disrupt the meeting and serves no other purpose.

Get your committee’s backing that either she or her proxy can speak, but not both and not selectively.

Then hand her the official form requesting mediation at Fair Trading – it’s free, so there’s no cost involved – and invite her to go ahead and start proceedings  that might lead to action at NCAT. 

If she chooses that route, your committee will defend its position vigorously and seek that costs be awarded against her.

Kezza111, if you are going to mediation make sure you have as much documentation as possible.