Related to this, in the ACT, the local Tribunal can ‘give effect to a failed motion on the grounds that opposition to the motion was unreasonable’. The Tribunal has interpreted this to mean that it does a ‘merits review’ rather than try to get inside the heads of the people who voted down a motion.
We had an example of a motion put to a general meeting that required an unopposed resolution to pass. The motion failed because it had about 85% support and 15% opposed. We (the committee who proposed the motion) then went to the Tribunal seeking an order to give effect to the motion on the ground that it was unreasonable to oppose.
The motion we proposed was one that our legal advice said was necessary to avoid various serious consequences. It was the most equitable solution possible to our situation. It would not cause any detriment to any owner; instead it correctly conferred privileges that had been incorrectly conferred previously while ensuring that a small number of remaining owners would have equivalent privileges conferred. It was a remedy to something done incorrectly previously albeit in good faith and without objection at the time. A few owners just got the ‘wrong end of the stick’, seemed incapable of understanding clear legal advice that was circulated to all and they got a few extra proxies and voted the motion down.
Those who had opposed were invited to explain their opposition at the Tribunal. A few owners did and it was clear they hadn’t a clue. The Tribunal accepted that our legally-advised solution was the most equitable and reasonable possible and that those who opposed had presented no reasonable grounds to oppose that solution.
Essentially ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ mean pretty much what you would expect them to mean.