The Tribunal can rule a meeting or resolution of a meeting “void for irregularity” (UTMA s.129). Why was the meeting regarded as irregular by the subsequent AGM? On what grounds does the AGM believe the meeting was irregular? Were the irregularities important to the outcome of the meeting or would the same result have occurred without the irregularity? Does a majority of the AGM believe the decision to levy three owners was the wrong decision? If so, why not have a regular meeting that resolves to reverse the previous decision to put the matter beyond doubt? If a majority think the three owners should have been levied the $2.5K, regardless of whatever the problems were with the meeting regularity, then why not let the decision stand and move on?