I can see the logic in all the perspectives so far expressed, and whilst we can logically assume that whatever2008 doesn’t agree with the E/C’s decision re the pot plants, we don’t know how much of that disagreement is due to the amount of expenditure involved, how much is due to the possibly autonomous nature of the E/C’s decision to make that purchase – and if that decision really matters in the big-picture scheme of things.
Under either circumstance, I’m of the opinion that the E/C’s actions would need to be more in accordance with the budgeting and expenditure provisions of the Act than with Sect 65A, where I’ve always interpreted additions and alterations to the Common Property as being those of a type that, if undone, would result in some rectification being necessary in order to return the Common Property to its original state, and I doubt that would apply to potted plants.
On the basis of an absolutely pedantic expenditure perspective and my assumptions about whatever2008‘s position, then the purchase of the pot plants should have been a sinking fund expense, and unless a $ amount is shown in the current budget for an item that relates to the acquisition of personal property by the Owners Corporation (O/C) or to a closely related matter, then the expenditure on the potted plants would be contrary to Sects 75(2) and 71(1)(a).
Although as Peter has observed (post #4), the E/C could assert (imo incorrectly) that its expenditure was under a vaguely related matter such as the all-encompassing “gardening”.