- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Required documentation for a general meeting. what makes the meeting invalid?
The Strata committee sent all of the documentation pertaining to one lot well within the prescribed time frame for a general meeting. However, he did not include all the documentation for owners to make a decision. Despite being alerted he went ahead with the meeting. Your thoughts appreciated.thanks
-
Replies
-
It’s a question of the real life effect of that fault. The NCAT, should this deficiency be taken there, will look at the real world effects, and will probably be willing to disallow a decision on a technicality. So, did the missing documents change the result, and can you prove that?
The obvious solution is to re-run the meeting, at a later date with all the correct material. So, consider whether the result would be different at that time? If no, then it’s a waste of resources.
A more practical solution, is to include a mention of the problem in the minutes, so all the owners can see what was missed and made their own decision about whether the issue deserves further attention. So, at the next general meeting, when the motion to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting is put, ensure that the fault is described. It is better to write to the strata manager / SC secretary, requesting that the minutes describe the documents that were omitted, and how they were later provided, and that the result was achieved in that situation. At that meeting you can discuss with the members if that problem is worth revisiting…
The law and the Tribunal are both very reluctant to declare meetings and decisions made at them invalid because of a flaw in the process.
Section 24 of the Act, which establishes the right of the tribunal to invalidate a decision made at a meeting where correct procedures were not followed, specifically says the Tribunal may not do so if it would have made no difference if correct procedures had been followed.
For instance, Jeff supports Irene’s candidacy for the strata committee, but Jeff’s vote is wrongly excluded because he is incorrectly thought to be behind with his levies. However, even if Jeff’s vote had been allowed, Irene would still have fallen short and would not have been elected. The election result stands, despite the flawed proceedings.
Similarly section 38 states (not in so many words) that defects in the appointment of strata committee members can’t be used as grounds for invalidating decisions made by the committee.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.