Grand Theft “paperwork”

Billen Ben said:

There are some interesting issues here:
does the OC have an obligation to reissue the notices? (if reissued they will not have a clear 7 days)

The EC has an obligation under the Act to “serve” notice of a meeting.  I would think that presumes a reliable means of delivery like post or email especially when there is a history of mail theft and vandalism. The difference between leaving notices in pigeon holes and sending material by post is that interfering with the Australia Post mail is (I think) a criminal offence and therefor more reliable.

You could argue that the EC has not only failed to serve all the notices to everyone entitled to get them but they will doubtless say that they have done their best and will deal with the consequences later (see below). But, seriously, this is a far from ideal situation when you have minutes of previous meetings, agendas and financial reports floating around (literally) – that's assuming the EC is fulfilling their legal obligation to provide these for the AGM.

given the pigeon holes are shared by anyone with a last name starting with the same letter can anyone really say it was removed from “my mailbox”?

People can say what they like but really, all they can honestly claim is that they never got the notice – whether it was ever there or not is another matter.  However, since there is a history of theft and there's evidence of vandalism, claims that the mail was taken from their box would have to be taken seriously.

what is the OC obligation to providing a secure and private mail delivery destination (mailbox for every unit)?

As far as I know the only legal obligation is to provide a mailbox for the Owners Corporation (presumably so that notices can be “served” on it).  Surely this is an issue for the owners to discuss at their AGM and then decide whether or not to pay for secure mailboxes to be installed.  If they chose not to do so, then they have to work out a reliable means of delivering notices and agendas.  Even if the majority say they are happy with the present arrangement, that clearly is not good enough.

In a large SP it means about 40 or 50 people will not get their notices; where does such a theft leave the outcome of an AGM when such an unusual event occurs?

Section 154 of the Act is quite specific – if due notice isn't given or someone's voting rights have been denied (for instance, if they didn't even know there was a meeting) decisions that would have been altered had they had a vote are nullified.  But be clear, that 's only decisions on which their vote would have made a difference – not decisions where there was an overwhelming majority.  And it doesn't nullify the meeting as a whole.  This is what the Act says:

154   Order where voting rights denied or due notice of item of business not given

(1)  An Adjudicator may order that a resolution passed at a general meeting of an owners corporation be treated as a nullity on and from the date of the order if satisfied that the resolution would not have been passed but for the fact that the applicant for the order:

(a)  was improperly denied a vote on the motion for the resolution, or

(b)  was not given due notice of the item of business in relation to which the resolution was passed.