#13711

Thanks for the feedback. The education officer has been helpful as well. Both Billen Ben and the education officer have referred me to Horsley’s Meetings which I have taken a look at.

The “One meeting only” section of Chapter 13 describes the common law principal that disallows new proxies and disallows the payment of debts before the meeting is resumed.

However I do have doubts about the notion that an unfinancial member cannot form part of a quorum at the original meeting.

While the notion that an unfinancial member cannot form part of a quorum and the common law principles associated with adjournments are not strictly mutually exclusive it appears to me that the two cannot co-exist.

It appears to me that to adjourn a meeting where all the members are present because some are not financial serves no purpose at all because of the power of the common law principal described in Horsley’s.

I have been to the CTTT on one occassion to have a compulsory manager appointed and with one of the ancilliary orders the adjudicator dealt with the validity of a number of meetings that had been held while in self management.

Two meetings were invalidated because not enough notice was given.

With a third meeting the adjudicator did not say the meeting (it was the original meeting) was invalid or inquorate but she did say that the unfinancial owners votes could not count. Which turned the resolutions passed 180 degrees because in this 2 unit strata scheme the two owners were not in agreement. In this case the unfinancial member did not trigger the adjudicator to order the meeting invalid because of no quorum.

In the introduction of the Quorum chapter Horsley’s does mention that the number of a quorum does not have to equal that number of votes in the introduction of the Quorum chapter.

I dont know if this helps me undermine the notion that a unfinancial member cannot form part of a quorum.

I will need to take this matter to the CTTT at some point. Thats why I wont let it go. Sorry.

Happily digging

Wombat