The strata manager accepted an oral nomination from this proxy representing the fourth lot. This decision was challenged as per sec 31, but the strata manager refused the challenge and defended her decision based on history and sec 9.
For the uninitiated, Section 31 of the NSW Act details who can be nominated for election and how. Section 9 establishes the collective rights and responsibilities of all owners to make decisions about the scheme.
This election is actually even less kosher than you thought. The strata manager should not have accepted the self-nomination of the co-owner as co-owners can only be nominated by the other co-owner.
So, legally, this election is all over the place. But is it wrong?
Your strata manager has clearly thought that having all owners involved is going to be a better way of running the building than having two owners shut out of decision-making for a year. Of course, those owners could call for general meetings to air any grievances, so why not just include them from the get-go, so that every committee meeting is a bit like an EGM?
Did the SM follow the law? No. Would a Tribunal overturn the election. Probably not as they would want to see who had suffered in any way because of the informal nature of the election.
For what it’s worth, I think your SM’s efforts to be inclusive are laudable, even if she went about it the wrong way.