Re: Out-of-date by-laws mean pet bans will stay

@SMO said:

I do not like that the moderator purports something as fact when there are some very good experts who are happy to say it is not fact.

I have been writing about strata for about 10 years now and from Day One I made it my mission to cut through the claptrap of legalese and find a way through the minefield of misinformation and misconceptions so that the majority of readers could properly understand most of what is going on.

This has involved a certain amount of fudging and paraphrasing but I can tell you that a hell of a lot more people have a better idea of how strata works that they did a decade ago, and my weekly Flat Chat column in the Sydney Morning Herald has had a small part to play in that.

In the course of this “journey” I have witnessed far too many discussions on what is right and what is wrong in strata get bogged down in the balderdash of semantics and specifics.

I have many lawyer friends who frequently tell me that on this issue I should not be saying at least 75 percent in favour but instead “no more than 25 percent against”.

However, as long as more people understand the difficulties of passing by-laws, I don’t care if the wording isn’t exactly right.

As for this particular argument, here’s the definition of a Special Resolution in the current Act:

special resolution means a resolution which is passed at a duly convened general meeting of an owners corporation and against which not more than one-quarter in value, ascertained in accordance with clause 18 (2) and (3) of Part 2 of Schedule 2, of votes is cast.

So let’s look at clause 18 (2) [part 3 is irrelevant to this discussion]:

18   Counting of votes on motions

(2)  If a poll is demanded by a person present and entitled to vote at the meeting or the motion is for a resolution that, to be effective, must be a special resolution:

(a)  the motion is to be decided according to the value of the votes cast for and against the motion, and

(b)  the value of a vote cast by a person entitled to vote in respect of a lot is equal to the unit entitlement of that lot.

Note that phrase: “the motion is to be decided according to the value of the votes cast for and against the motion”

It could not be any clearer – only the votes being cast count.

To be honest, I don’t care how many of our “learned friends” think this is suitable topic for debate.  Lawyers rarely present facts – only opinions – and if all lawyers agreed on everything then we wouldn’t need judges.

But I challenge anyone  to come up with a single instance where the interpretation of these clauses has changed the outcome of a vote.

Otherwise the question of whether the party of the first party went to the second party, and the henceforths and hitherto of legal debate do not belong on this website.