Current Page

[The Hood]

Some of us are familiar with the requirement of Sch 1 cl 4 of the Act that a general meeting motion request requires the name of the submitter and an explanation (up to 300 words) to accompany the motion.
My agent in 2017 ruled one owners’ motions out of order for not having an explanation, in subsequent years, including the recent AGM, when faced with more motions with no explanation from  different owners the agent was happy to put them to the meeting.

My agent says:
“ … advice we had (then) from the industry bodies was that each motion required a explanatory note which had to be included on the notice. The advice has since changed and now not required on the notice.”

Does anyone know which ‘industry bodies’ the agent might be referring to; it is not SCA?
Is no longer required even though the Act still says the same thing?

I do understand it is not fatal to a resolution if the motion did not comply with the requirement of name and explanation but an out of order ruling at the Chairs’ discretion comes before a motion is put to the meeting.

Topic

[The Hood]

Agent says:
“It would have been in a CPD or a industry update session by a lawyer at some stage”

If there is another agent who reads this then they might recall it, that would be handy.

CPD i doubt, and if some brief says so then there would likely be another brief somewhere else saying otherwise.

I still think the agent is making it up to cover the not just the inconsistency.
The motions rules out of order were from someone the agent would have liked to annoy.

Quote

[Author]

Replies