So here it is in a nutshell.
- Special resolutions require a poll vote based on the value of unit entitlements.
- If more than 25 percent of the value of the votes cast is against the motion it falls.
- If 75 percent or more of the value of the votes cast are in favour, it passes.
The arguments over the correct terminology are so eye-glazingly boring and of so little actual significance (as in, make a difference in the real world) that I will continue to say “75 percent of votes in favour” because that gives people a sense of the size of the task. They can work out the nitty gritty when they sit down to see if they have the numbers.
The “in a nutshell summary” Jimmy gives is more in line with the definition of a special resolution as found in the Corporations Act 2001.
That the definitions in the SSMA and the Corporations Act 2001 are worded the way they are only adds to the incorrectness of claiming 75% of votes in favor is what is required.
It is not fact that it is votes cast, and that is the point of my earlier post that references some some pretty expert lawyers. It is fact that votes cast is one interpretation but it is not fact that that interpretation is fact.
BIG DIFFERENCE between votes cast and votes present that could be cast and it is a difference that can mean a motion failed when others think it passed and vice-versa. My eyes are starting to glaze and forums like this cannot resolve the two interpretations.
I have submitted it should be resolved in the reform by making the definition clear.
As long as readers are aware that according to some pretty expert strata lawyers that the 75% requirement is not actually correct (nor is it what is expressed by the SSMA), then I have no problems with questionable nutshells designed to keep the glaze from people eyes.
I do not like that the moderator purports something as fact when there are some very good experts who are happy to say it is not fact.