About a decade age a developer built a whole shopping centre without approval and ultimately it was ordered that it be demolished – which seemed like a pleasing outcome for those who value (and can comprehend) the rule of law. This case would appear to be a case where NCAT -if involved- should appoint a Strata Mgr. to take over control for a period and arrange/negotiate suitable recompense.
I haven’t re-read all the previous mail on this but my experience with most SC members have a somewhat similar disregard of the law but present a strong defence that they are “doing the right thing/avoiding trouble” etc. Although phrases such as “Special Resolution” occasionally appear on some paperwork I don’t think anyone involved has ever spent two minutes attempting to comprehend what the Law requires; they probably think that something like building a swimming pool or removing balconies require a special resolution in order to awaken the majority of un-involved investors who otherwise don’t want to be disturbed by agenda’s and minutes of SC meetings. Your case seems similar except that some/most owners think of the offenders as a “mate” and thus I would think that legally they could do what they have done except that they would chip in from their own pockets to pay for the ownership of the land to be transferred to the “mate” if they didn’t think he should have to bear the burden.
I note that NCAT doesn’t get good press but this is the sort of situation for which it exists.