#21457
Wirihana
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Hey Jimmy I wasn’t being sarcastic, just frisky!

    However I detect a hint of fulmination in your response so let me reiterate a few points.

     

    When I said “an EC can ONLY convene an EGM by holding a properly convened EC meeting“, I was referring to clause 31 (2), not 31 (3). 

    I thought I had made that clear in the use of words “an EC“.

    You previously suggested that a strata manager could adopt this function and quoted strataman as reinforcement.

    The legislation makes no provision for decision-making at casual EC meetings or over the phone so clause 31 (2) means a proper meeting must be held.

     

    And yes you are right, decisions at an unlawfully convened general meeting could stand unless the outcome would have been different at the same meeting, had it been lawfully convened.

    In this matter I had the option of having the meeting invalidated, because I thought the vote may have been different and an agenda item was missing, but I chose not to pursue that path. 

     

    As for your cynical disparagement of a Fair Trading expert, I imagine that I would do the same with a paid opinion to the contrary from an expert in a top law firm, if it was not what I wanted to hear. 

    The expert I met did cite legislation and quoted from regulations but I did not reproduce all details in my previous post for the sake of brevity.

    In fact I called the Fair Trading help line three times and was given the same advice each time. This was then confirmed by the senior officer who I met in person.  She also added that the “first meeting” definition was frequently a point of contention and was another good reason for the legislation to be changed. At which point will you believe our public servants one wonders? 

     

    As for the proxies, an adjourned meeting is still a meeting in its own right is it not? There is no definition to the contrary! As I mentioned previously, if I used your definition of first meeting the process is unwieldy to the point of ridiculousness. To make sure my vote was registered I would have to provide a proxy before the first meeting in case it was adjourned, even if I turned up.  Then I would have to cancel it if I did turn up, so then how would it apply at the adjourned meeting? Can you reinstate a cancelled proxy at an adjournment?  That would appear to be a new proxy would it not? And not applicable any more as it is not the “first meeting” (using your definition) where it was cancelled? 

     

    And I am not sure what you mean when you say “then didn’t bother to have them updated for the second meeting”.  Are you suggesting that the adjourned meeting is a second meeting?  And if so how would you update the proxy which only applied to the first meeting?  If it is just the date that matters then any date before the first or adjourned meeting should suffice.

    At the meeting that I disputed, the proxies were presented within the correct time frame with correct dates for the adjourned meeting but were still refused.

     

    PS why didn’t you dance at your wedding?