Wirihana,
It looks like your reinforcements arrived at the battlefield a day late.
Why not simply call another battle, as you seem to have enough (25%+) support to requisition an EGM.
There may have been a technical breach if the adjourned meeting was held only 6 days after the first.
Schedule 2 clause 12(4) of the Act says:
If a quorum, as provided by subclause (2), is not present within the next half-hour after the relevant motion or business arises for consideration at the meeting, the meeting stands adjourned for at least 7 days.
and clause 13(2)(b) says:
notice of that time and place must be served by the Secretary on the members of the owners corporation at least 1 day prior to the meeting.
But it would be quicker (as Scotty said) to call a new EGM than to lodge a complaint, maybe have the meeting invalidated, and what … be ordered to hold the meeting again?
I did read somewhere, maybe even in this forum, that it was “established law” that the adjourned meeting was a continuation of the original meeting not a new meeting, therefore proxies had to be delivered (for a large scheme) 24 hours before the original meeting.
But law is not (necessarily) justice, and I agree with your logical deductions. A person who attends the original meeting but cannot attend the adjournment is disenfranchised by not being allowed to submit a proxy. And the only way to prevent that is to give a proxy for the original meeting and to override it by turning up and voting personally.
Anyway, after the Gov’s proposed changes, you’ll probably never hear of an adjournment again.
And, don’t hate the Chairman. As Jimmy said, he may have been “nit-pickingly precise”, but if he hadn’t been, someone else could have lodged a complaint, and it (probably) would have been upheld.
Also, the EC can resolve to issue a NTC, so your Chairman was considerate in calling an EGM to obtain a wider view.
You also said:
I also submitted a general meeting agenda item to change the existing by-law, stating that it is unreasonable and unworkable and that it should be replaced with the standard by-law option A.
Lucky that didn’t pass! Option A allows only fish. And don’t ask for option B either, because for dogs it only allows those of the “small” persuasion.
Write your own.