“It is a general misconception that you require 75% of all voters present (either personally or by proxy) to vote in favour of a proposed motion. In fact a special resolution is passed only after a poll is taken at the meeting and not more than 25% in value of the votes, by persons present (either personally or by proxy) and entitled to vote, are against the motion. The value of a vote cast by a person entitled to vote in respect of a lot is equal to the unit entitlement of that lot: cl.18(2) sch.2 of the Act.”
**** Lawyers (not a sponsor of this site)
I just do not understand why people keep using the 75% in favour thing when it is a common misconception.
And then there is also the following from a top shelf Sydney strata expert lawyer (also not a sponsor, so no names will be given)
” The view expressed by Alex is the one I have been accustomed to.
It is explained in terms of 18(2), on the basis that 18(2)(a) indicates that the question of whether the motion passes is determined on votes cast only, whereas 18(2)(b) and 18(3) are directed at how the value of votes is determined.
If you then look to the definition of “special resolution” in the dictionary, the reference to clause 18(2) and 18(3) is in relation to determining the 25% value of votes that are cast (and not determining whether the motion is passed or not).
Essentially Alex’s view treats the words “votes” in the phrase “not more than 25 percent … of votes is cast” as meaning votes that could be cast, whereas CCH is treating “votes” to mean votes that were in fact cast.
So on that view the motion passes under 18(2)(a) on votes actually cast for and against, and the 25% is determined on unit entitlements (or reduced developer entitlements) under 18(2)(b) and 18(3) of “votes” within the meaning of the definition of “special resolution” in the Dictionary.
There is a certain symmetry in your view, which certainly adds to its appeal.
However, as the matter is ambiguous, I am convinced by the notion that the legislature intended the 25% to be effectively a “veto” power, or a kind of reversal of the “onus”. If people are present and abstain, on that view they are electing not to exercise the veto power. The calculation of the 25% according to votes that could be cast is consistent with this interpretation.”