› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Living in strata › Quorum present not all financial › Current Page
The CTTT application that dealt with the missed $600.00 discount also dealt with 3 general meeting held while the lot owner was not financial.
Two of the general meetings were attended only by the unfinancial owner. The two meetings were adjourned because of a lack of a quorum but the unfinancial owner did not adjourn for the minimum 7 days. The CTTT said the meetings were invalid because they were not adjouned for the minimum 7 days.
The third general meeing that was attended by both owners on the notified date. No adjournment. The CTTT did not invalidate the third general meeting but said that the votes of the unfinancial owner could not be counted.
Here is a case were Clause 10(8) of Sch 2 has been applied retrospectively and where the validity of the meeting was left standing which would mean that the quorum was valid.
I understand that the CTTT adjudicator did not cast their mind to the specific issue of the quorum and that even if they had that that doesn't mean their “logic” would have made perfect sense.
If Clause 10(8) of Sch 2 had the weight that some give it wouldn't its retrospective application trigger a ripple effect where the unfinancial owners entitlement to vote would be removed which would have a flow on effect on the quorum and the validity of the meeting?
Remember this is a two lot scheme so the outcome of some of the resolutions at the general meeting have been turned 180 degrees. A fact that I have exploited in subsequent CTTT applications.
Despite this I am still uncertain about the true effect of Clause 10(8) of Sch 2 because of the changing mind of the CTTT and the legal consensus that says it has an effect on a persons voting entitlement.
I'm not one to take a legal consensus as gospel. A legal consensus is open to challenge. The lawyer that sucessfully challenges the legal consensus is well worth his salt. As for the rest they are just part of a nodding crowd.