The Act doesn’t need to say the EC must meet because no meeting means it’s not an EC decision – if there’s not a meeting, it’s not the EC. The Chair has no executive powers.
There are variations of that, for instance the Owners Corp can (and often does) devolve certain decisions to the Strata Manager. Or it can allow someone like a building manager to act on its behalf, or even individual owners, especiallywith regard to a certain project.
But in the vast majority of situations where there is no building manager and the strata manager doesn’t handle day-to-day decisions, the Executive Committee has to do so – but how does it make a decision without some kind of a meeting?
One answer is that (as happens in my building) the Chair starts acting like a CEO or General Manager, making arbitrary decisions that he or she knows will be supported by the Executive Committee.
If an EC isn’t prepared to reel their office-bearers in, there is little that can be done preemptively to stop them. But if they make decisions that haven’t been approved by an EC meeting, then they can be in trouble if the Owners Corp turns round and says, “Hey, we didn’t give you prior approval to do this and you haven’t held an EC meeting so you are not acting as representatives of the Owners Corporation.”
Another grey area is where ECs do a ring-around or hold a meeting by email which strictly speaking isn’t a meeting but you can be sure they will ratify the decision at at later, properly notified meeting. There’s nothing wrong with this and it does help with the smooth running of a strata scheme if decisions can be made when they need to be made.
In any case, an ordinary owner isn’t going to be able to change the decisions of the EC whether or not it’s properly notified. You don’t even have the right to speak at an EC meeting unless a majority of EC members want to hear what you have to say.
However if, say, a dominant member of the EC starts making arbitrary decisions that the EC won’t approve retrospectively – signing contracts with tradespeople that turn out to be over-priced or incompetent, for instance – then they could be in serious trouble because they have no authority to do that. Without proper EC authority, they are personally liable for contracts that they sign.
At the risk of repeating myself, the Act devolves Owners Corporation decision-making to the Executive Committee – not to the Chair, the secretary or anyone else. That implies a meeting, even if it is by email or phone.
One note of caution: Don’t expect to get a CTTT order against your current EC members unless you can show that an owner or owners have suffered some sort of harm as a result of correct procedures not being observed.
The CTTT is specifically given powers to reject applications for orders where the only fault is that the protocols weren’t followed and many adjudicators will work on the basis of ‘no harm, no foul’.
This is what the Act says:
185 Dismissal of application on certain grounds
If the ground for an application for an order under this Part is:
(a) the absence of a quorum at a meeting, or
(b) a defect, irregularity or deficiency of notice or time,
the Tribunal may, by order, dismiss the application if the Tribunal believes that no substantial injustice has resulted.
So don’t expect the CTTT to fight your battles on matters of procedure or principle. You have to show that there has been “injustice” and it might be easier to just run a campaign at a General Meeting to clear these people out or, at the very least, get the Owners at a General Meeting, to agree not to validate decisions made without proper procedures having been observed.
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.