Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #10414

    Under strata legislation I understand that an “owner” of not less than 1/3 of the unit entitlements can prevent an item being discussed in an EC meeting.

    What is the legal definition of  an “owner” under strata legislation.  For example, in an apartment of 6 lots where each lot has equal entitlements. I am an owner of one lot, and a director of a company that owns another lot. Do I have one third of the entitlements or am I as individual and the company considered separate entities and therefore not have the required one third majority.

Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #24801
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      @sofgrain said:

      What is the legal definition of  an “owner” under strata legislation.  I am an owner of one lot, and a director of a company that owns another lot. Do I have one third of the entitlements or am I as individual and the company considered separate entities and therefore not have the required one third majority.

      You effectively have one-third of the vote – provided your interest is registered on the Roll.

      If you read down through this, to the various sections of the Act, if your name doesn’t appear on the strata roll, you need to send the Owners Corp, in writing, a notice of your entitlement to vote as the nominee of your company.

      Many strata schemes will juas accept that you are entitled to vote.  However, if the matter is contentious – as I suspect this may be – you would be better to do it properly to avoid challenges. 

      According to the Act, an owner of a lot in a freehold strata scheme means:

      (a)  except as provided by paragraph (b), a person for the time being recorded in the Register as entitled to an estate in fee simple in that lot, or

      (b)  a person whose name has been entered on the strata roll as an owner in accordance with section 98.

      And section 98 says:

      98   What must be recorded in the strata roll?

      (1)  There must be recorded in the strata roll in relation to a particular lot:

      (a)  the owner’s name and an Australian address for service of notices or the name of the owner’s agent appointed in accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 4 and the agent’s Australian address for service of notices, and

      (b)  information provided under section 118 or obtained from the Register in connection with the lot…

      And section 118 says:

      118Notice to be given to owners corporation of right to cast vote at meeting

      (1) Person with right to vote at meetings must notify owners corporation
      A person who has an interest in a lot that, subject to this Act, gives the person a right to cast a vote either personally or by nominee at meetings of the owners corporation must notify the owners corporation in writing of that interest.

      (2) Contents of notice
      The notice must specify the following information and, if the interest is a mortgage, include confirmation by the mortgagor or be verified by statutory declaration of the mortgagee:

      (a)  the person’s full name and an Australian address for service of notices,

      (b)  the lot concerned and the exact nature of the person’s interest in it,

      (c)  the date on which the person acquired the interest,

      (d)  if the voting entitlement conferred by the interest is one that, according to Schedule 2, is to be exercised by a nominee, the nominee’s full name and address for service of notices.

      and …

      (4) Owners corporation may require notice to be given

      The secretary of the owners corporation, if of the opinion that a person obliged to give notice under this section has not done so, may by a requisition in writing served on the person, require the person:

      (a)  to state, within 14 days, whether or not the person is a person required to give notice under this section, and

      (b)  if the person is such a person, to give that notice.

      (5) Person prevented from casting vote if certain requirements not met
      A person is not entitled to cast a vote at a meeting of the owners corporation if the person has not complied with a requisition served on the person under subsection (4) or, in the case of a vote to be tendered through a nominee, if the nominee’s full name and address for service of notices have not been notified under this section.

      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.
      #24805
      Sir Humphrey
      Strataguru

        I am surprised that NSW apparently has some mechanism to allow less than a majority of a general meeting to shut down discussion of some topic. Is that really true? What if the matter is a something that an OC can decide, a clear majority want to discuss it, and there is a motion put that they could vote on?  

        It seems conceivable that the matter is not a proper matter for an OC to decide. An OC can only conduct certain sorts of business. If so, I would have expected that a person objecting should put a procedural motion that the matter is ‘ultra vires’ – beyond the powers of the OC – and so should not be voted on. If that motion were lost, and the purported ultra vires motion were passed, then the person objecting could seek an order from the Tribunal to overturn the motion on the grounds that it was ultra vires and should not have passed. 

        If the majority make a decision that would unfairly disadvantage a minority the legal principle – that that the majority should not defraud the minority – could by applied by the tribunal when reviewing the decision.

        I am in the ACT. We had an occasion when an owner, who would have had some proxies votes as well, went to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking orders that a general meeting not go ahead and not discuss a matter that she thought should not be put to a general meeting. The ACAT gave her short shrift and said that the OC could decide what to discuss and vote on at the properly constituted general meeting. 

        #24806
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster

          Just a little confusion here, Peter.

          That ruling applies to decisions of the EC, not the OC (although in a scheme of 6 they may well be the same thing).

          This is what the Act says:

          11   Decisions of executive committee

          (2)  A decision of an executive committee has no force or effect if, before that decision is made, notice in writing is given to the secretary of the executive committee by one or more owners, the sum of whose unit entitlements exceeds one-third of the aggregate unit entitlement, that the making of the decision is opposed by those owners.

          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.
          #24809
          Sir Humphrey
          Strataguru

            Thank you Jimmy. That makes a bit more sense. I guess an EC, given notice of a substantial (>33%) minority of opposition to some proposition, would instead decide to put the matter to a general meeting to decide. That way the matter could be decided in the affirmative by, say, 55% or 65% (assuming the matter requires only an ordinary resolution).

            However, what if the 34% of opposing owners know they would lose such a vote? Could they pre-emptively give notice that not only should the EC not decide themselves on the matter, they should also never decide to present a motion to a general meeting on the matter?

            It sounds like there could be scope for game-playing!

          Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page