- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
My strata manager – one of the big companies – will not accept a new proxy appointment for an adjourned general meeting.
Their Education Officer, was kind enough to explain why they cannot allow new proxies. He described how it was essentially the same meeting and that the generally accepted meeting procedure under common law does not permit new proxies because it is the same meeting.
Not entirely convinced I searched the web and I found a document that suggests that they are wrong.
Rio Tinto had an adjourned general meeting last year and allowed new proxies. I would have thought that the common law meeting procedure referred to by the strata manager would be adhered to by a corporate giant. apparently not.
There may be a good reason for this difference of approach. Possibly the Rio constitution allows this.
See the following link.
[NB: I edited the name of the strata company out. It’s no big deal but it’s just our “no-names, no packdrill policy” – and you either have a policy or you don’t. Rio Tinto – well, that’s a whole different issue …- JT]
-
Replies
-
Hi Wombat,
What the Education Officer told you is correct and there is no paradox between that and what Rio did.
Rather than attempt to convey what i need to convey i will direct you to a book called Horsley's Meetings (should be available through your local library) and refer you to the chapter on proxies after which illumination will be yours and you will understand how in some cases a meeting can have new proxies while in other cases a meeting cannot.
You already seem to know the answer though –if a constitution or standing orders etc allow for new proxies then they are allowed and the common law position is no longer the standard. In the case of a strata meeting there are no provisions in the law relating to the matter so the common law position prevails.
wombat said:
It seems to me that the combination of the notion of an unfinancial member not being able to form part of the quorum and the notion that the owner cannot rectify their finances during the adjournment period is contradictory and unjust.
The adjournment is necessary to move towards having the meeting that has loosened the quorum conditions.It seems to me that the purpose of the adjournment is lost when the manager says nothing can change during the adjournment period.
It sounds like you have yourself a classic 'Catch-22' there but the law does provide a circuit breaker.
12 Quorum
(4) If a quorum … is not present within the next half-hour after the relevant motion or business arises for consideration at the meeting, the meeting stands adjourned for at least 7 days.
(5) If a quorum … is not present within the next half-hour after the time fixed for the adjourned meeting, the persons present personally or by duly appointed proxy and entitled to vote constitute a quorum for considering that motion or business.
In other words, turn up for the next meeting, your neighbour's vote will once again be ruled invalid wait half an hour and then you get to vote all on your own on the matters on that agenda. It sounds like red tape gone mad but if you've ever been on the end of a nit-picking legal argument about how a decision that was made never should have been made, you'll see why the strata manager has followed the rules to the letter.
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.
wombat said:
…. I have been to the CTTT on one occassion to have a compulsory manager appointed and with one of the ancilliary orders the adjudicator dealt with the validity of a number of meetings that had been held while in self management.
Two meetings were invalidated because not enough notice was given….
This i find astonishing. In one case i did the adjudicator ( a Senior Member) acknowledged that proper notice was not given but took no action because in his opinion there was still a good turn out on the day.
CTTT are such a bunch of no-account reprobates.
An SP, large, small or in-between, either needs to give proper notice or it does not and it should not be a case of how does some pompous “public servant” feel about the particular matter before him/her. These people are hopelessly inconsistent.I would agree that if a meeting is adjourned because of the number of non financial members then what is the point of the adjournment except to move to the position Jimmy points out above; i.e. where the quorum at the reconvened meeting can become those present regardless of how many that number is.
I wish you well with your quest for clarity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.