In the ACT the Act is very similar. The EC has a limit but latitude within that. Recently we have spent a very small amount to initiate an ACAT (CTTT equivalent) dispute because an owner has not complied with an 'Articles Infringement Notice' (they don't want to remove something they constructed on common property even after having it all explained nicely, then more formally).
We spent rather more (within the limit) on legal advice when it became clear that some owners were putting a motion to oppose the EC's decision to spend money on remedying a significant safety risk caused by a defect on the common property that had caused damage to private property. Having written answers from a lawyer to every question we could think one might ask about the matter made for a much more pleasant AGM than we might have had.
We also got legal advice when a different group of owners objected to an EC decision and took us to ACAT. We we genuinely unsure if certain parts of their argument were valid (some of it was, some was not). Again the legal advice was important and useful.
All this is rather new to us and we feel it is forced on us because we are trying to be competent and make a difference rather than muddling along and backing down at the first sign of resistance, the latter approach having caused many of the issues we are now dealing with.