@scotlandx said:
Going back to the original query, the manager has got it completely wrong. There was no quorum, so unless enough people attend in person at the adjourned meeting there will again be no quorum and no meeting, which is what JGOWI said at the outset.
Hate to do this but I don’t think that’s what the Act says. According to my reading of the relevant clauses, if there is no quorum the meeting is adjourned for seven days. When the meeting is resumed seven days later, whoever is present and entitled to vote constitutes a quorum. This is what the Act says:
12Quorum
(1) A motion submitted at a general meeting of an owners corporation must not be considered, and an election must not be held, unless there is a quorum present to consider and vote on the motion or on the election.
(2) There is a quorum for considering and voting on such a motion or at such an election only if:
(a) at least one-quarter of the number of persons entitled to vote on the motion or at the election is present, either personally or by duly appointed proxy, or
(b) at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlement of the strata scheme is represented by the persons who are present and entitled to vote on the motion or at the election, either personally or by duly appointed proxy.
(4) If a quorum, as provided by subclause (2), is not present within the next half-hour after the relevant motion or business arises for consideration at the meeting, the meeting stands adjourned for at least 7 days.
(5) If a quorum, as provided by subclause (2), is not present within the next half-hour after the time fixed for the adjourned meeting, the persons present personally or by duly appointed proxy and entitled to vote constitute a quorum for considering that motion or business.
On the matter of the proxies given after the meeting has been adjourned not being valid, I think we have to look at the pragmatics of the situation. In other words, has anyone ever heard of a decision being overturned because the meeting was adjourned and the people present offered poxies. I ask this because CTTT Adjudicators have a lot of leeway to reject applications to overturn decisions that aren’t unfair or unjust.
Remember, there are no StrataCops running around issuing infingement tickets. Decisions have to be challenged and technicalities don’t hold as much sway in the CTTT as they do in courts of law. Here’s what the Act says:
163 Dismissal of application on certain grounds
(2) If the ground for an application for an order under this Part is:
(a) the absence of a quorum at a meeting, or
(b) a defect, irregularity or deficiency of notice or time,
an Adjudicator may, by order, dismiss the application if the Adjudicator believes that no substantial injustice has resulted.
Sounds to me like any challenge to an AGM decision based on the fact that proxies were presented after the initial meeting was adjourned, even though technically invalid, wouldn’t hold much water at the CTTT.