Renovation Dramas

Stumped said: The lawyer and his Firm have a confidential, undisclosed agreement with the EC to provide legal advice to the OC.

Executive Committee Members sometimes forget that their role is akin to that of a Company’s Board of Directors, and unless they’ve personally engaged and are paying for the Lawyers’ services, and I doubt that, then the law firm’s client is the Owners Corporation (O/C), and as a Proprietor and a Member of the O/C you are entitled to apply to view the alleged agreement. 

As for the demand that all communications from Proprietors is sent directly to the law firm, that’s absolute rubbish, as is the lawyer’s statement that the E/C needs (or can) approve of your requested renovations – unless there’s a Special By-Law covering renovations of the types that you propose.

You should in the first instance ascertain if the renovations you propose requires the O/C’s consent, if that’s the case I’d resubmit everything to the  E/C Secretary (i.e. to the position – even if the person is the lawyer) and copy the Strata Manager.

In that way at least you’re complying with the applicable law (the Strata Schemes Management Act), and that should force the O/C to do likewise in terms of how your proposal is dealt with, and leave open the avenues that you have to seek redress if consent is unreasonably delayed or refused.

I don’t know where to start on this, it’s disgusting.

If the lawyer wanted to take legal action on the part of the OC, there would have to be a resolution by the OC or the EC under delegated authority to commence legal action.  It is not the sort of thing that can just be done on a whim.  For example, a Supreme Court action would cost 10s of thousands of dollars just to get to the Court, and that is being conservative.

Has there been any resolution by the OC to enter into the purported agreement to charge $1100 an hour (which is astronomical)?  Any such resolution would have had to have been supported by a copy of the agreement, or at least a summary of its terms.

When the lawyer corresponds with you, does he say he is acting on behalf of the OC?  If it isn’t on the firm’s letterhead, then it suggests that it is coming from him personally, albeit using law firm stationery.

The Lawyer subsequently went to the Head of his Firm, who OK’d the Firm suing me, demanding apologies, retractions, major money etc for something the lawyer “took exception to”.  If I didn’t comply, the Firm would take me to the Supreme Court.  (That which I was accused of was done by someone else.  There’s been no apologie and no retraction from their side.  Not a peep.  They’re still hunting the person ‘responsible’.) 

Can you clarify, is/was the firm threatening to sue you or the OC?  A law firm doesn’t usually “sue” someone, other than for unpaid fees.

It may be that the simplest route for you would be to make a complaint to the Law Society.  You could start by writing a letter to the head of the law firm saying that is what you are going to do, but perhaps it isn’t worth it.

“BLUFF” I meant (I still have no edit option whne I post) 

@Stumped said:
I was told at last month’s EC Meeting that a motion would be put to the Owners Corp at an EGM scheduled for the end of this month to apply a special levy so that the Owners Corp could sue me personally in the Supreme Court.  This is due to my attempts to convey to Lot Owners what’s going on within our Strata via a website.  I didn’t make a single statement; I simply collected information available on the web plus added documents that have already been circulated within the Strata – documents from the CTTT, EC Members etc – and popped all of this on the site.  My ‘opponents’ claim this is all defamatory.

I’m not a lawyer, let alone a defamation lawyer, but having been involved on the periphery of a defamation case in a strata scheme, I can tell you this much:  Discussion and the passage of information within the owners of a scheme attracts a level of “qualified privilege” which allows for the free exchange of information and opinions.  Your mistake may have been if you made the website publicly available.

Elements that diminish qualified privilege include publication to a wider audience (ie people who are not members of the owners corporation) and malice. Truth is a partial defence against defamation claims and i think a corporation may have to prove actual malicious intent if they were to claim damages.

It’s at this point that I feel I should stop writing and suggest you consult a defamation lawyer.

However, if I were in your shoes I would be making sure that every owner in the building knew that their money – and potentially substantial mounts of it – were about to be wasted on a quixotic attempt to silence concerned owners.  The chances of them winning, and getting enough in damages to cover their costs, are debatable.  

But one group is guaranteed to benefit – the lawyers who are hired by the EC.

Wait until the agenda is published and then hit all the owners in the building with a letter telling them why they need to reject the motion. FYI:  In the case to which I refer, an owner spent upwards of $300,000 pursuing a claim that he had been defamed. The case was allowed to proceed because there were enough elements in place that defamation was possible. However, he lost the case and all costs were awarded to the EC. That’s the threat of which your fellow owners should be aware.

What you are confronting sounds like corporate bullying of the worst kind and the best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

Somebody has to take-on the clown that you have elected as E/C Secretary, and I guess you’re trying to decide if that should be you!

As I see it, your current problem may be that even though the proposed renovations are entirely within your lot, some may be on common walls, you are making changes to the “services” within your lot and the SCMA requires you to give your O/C a minimum 14 days notice of that, your contractors will necessarily be on the Common Property and your O/C may have requirements with regard to that, and there will be unavoidable noise that both the O/C and your neighbours may regard as a nuisance.

So with all that and the information provided in your previous posts taken into account, as tempting as it is I’d be pushing the project back until you’re absolutely sure that all the boxes have been ticked; but that’s me!

Perhaps talk to the neighbours, and if they’re on-side and you can be sure that your Contractors will behave themselves by not leaving vehicles, tools, and materials on the Common Property, then tell (not ask) the E/C Secretary that if you don’t receive a definitive yay or nay within the (required) 14 days from the date of your original correspondence, then your works will commence.