- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
At the EGM 2014, one of the motions was called out of order and dismissed by the chairman (strata manager), because as he stated the motion required special resolution. The motion was not noted on the agenda as such. At the same time the owners who put the motion on the agenda were not able to prove that the issue is a repair, section 62 (standard resolution). The chairman also stated it is an upgrade and only section 65A is applicable. (Special resolution).
These two owners refused to accept it and few months later another EGM was called and chaired by the EC chairman, (not the strata manager) who at same time was one of the owners who put once again the same motion on the agenda, without stating special resolution required. 4 owners out of 8 handed over a statement asking the motion to be dismissed for the same reasons as the last time.
The chairman refused to acknowledge and accept it. He said he has a written legal advise from a top strata lawyer, who advised him that only standard resolution can be applicable, because of a safety issue. He refused not only to show this alleged advise to the OC, he even refused to answer or prove what should be unsafe. He said that not him but the 4 opposing owners have to prove the opposite.
18 month ago on the request of these two owners, the OC engaged a structural engineering company, to check the safety and the condition of the balconies. The report stated “no further action required”, because no problems were identified.
These 2 owners had and have support of two others and so with they have entitlements majority, therefore these two owners are pushing the voting on standard resolution, what was the case this time.Can the chairman without any proof or reason change the previous EGM resolution? Is this not only conflict of interest but also is it sufficient to claim that he has a written advise from a strata lawyer, what he was and is refusing to present to the OC, because he paid for it, unless the OC will reimburse him? Does not the OC has the right to see this advise on which grounds the chairman changed the previous resolution?
Didn’t he misuse his position as the chairman and was this voting under these circumstances and what he did legal at all?Alinka
-
Replies
-
There is an all-encompassing Section 138 by which you can ask an adjudicator to make a ruling on what the EC or Owners Corp should do.
If you go to mediation, then adjudication, the people who are pushing for this will have to show their evidence if they want a ruling in their favour.
By the way, their argument that you have to prove them wrong is nonsense. All you have to do is tell them that any decision they make that is not covered by the Strata Act will be a) challenged at NCAT and b) a ruling will also be sought to adjust levies so that they alone pay all costs.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Your Owners Corp is exempt from needing the Approval of a General meeting if the legaladvice is less than $1000 per unit or $12,500, whichever is less.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
The EC could resolve to invite a lawyer to attend a general meeting within cost limits.
I recall that our EC once engaged a lawyer to speak to a meeting of owners so that they would better understand his advice on a complex issue that would ultimately require an unopposed resolution of a general meeting.
I don’t see that the EC needed to call an EGM to decide whether to engage a lawyer to attend another general meeting, within the above-mentioned limits for legal costs.
A function of the EC is to plan meetings and develop proposals for the OC to consider. If the EC thinks that it would be beneficial to engaging a lawyer to explain certain matters to a meeting and answer questions then I think that is within their function. Similarly, an EC might decide that some other sort of proposal could be better explained to owners and explored by a general meeting by inviting an engineer or an architect to attend the meeting. IE, in principle, I see nothing wrong with an EC engaging appropriate experts to advise on matters, and, on occasions, deciding that the best way for that advice to be communicated would be in person.
The lawyer may or may not be useful and the EC’s proposals may or may not be ideas that will be supported by the OC at the general meeting, but that is another matter. At least you have been given the opportunity to directly question the lawyer about whatever is proposed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.