› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Proxies – blind faith or good sense? › Proxy Votes at General Meetings › Current Page
It seems the original motion has ambiguity; does it only apply to new pets or do current pets have to go. The amendment then clarifies this a little but anyone not at the meeting may have instructed a proxy under the idea the motion meant new and existing.
Horsley talks about the wording of motions and good charateristics for a motion. Ambiguity is not a desirable characteristic. The original motion would be potentially contestable because it has ambiguity. The amendment removes the ambiguity but creates a context that some owners may considers alters one interpretation of the original motion to such an extent it undermines the nature of the original motion i.e owners who thought the original meant existing pets also go are now faced with a somewhat different motion.
In the case above it may be wise to hold a later EGM with a well worded motion and rule the matter before the AGM out of order due to the ambiguity the amendment revealed.
According to Horsley owners would have the right to propose amendments, at the meeting, within the scope of the principle that the amendment not alter the nature of the motion. If someone proposed an amendment and the Chair did not allow the meeting to pass or fail the amendment then from what appears in Horsley it is likely the decision on the substantive motion would be in jeopardy.
The nice thing about Horsley is that it quotes case after case to back the commentary.
Horsley’s Meetings: Procedure, Law and Practice by A D Lang
(Endorsed by the Chartered Institute of Company Secretaries in Australia)
ISBN 0-409-30915-X