Deemed served and proper notice

Jimmy-T wrote:

That said, there is a convention that you have to allow two or three working days (not including weekends) for notices to arrive by mail, if that’s how they were sent.

That is the issue.
It is 7 business days in the mail in order to claim evidence notices were served (Interpretation Act s 76 and Evidence Act s 160) and the claim by some on the SC (thanks to advice from the agent) is that because those 7 days were not allowed for (only 6) that, even though no one is saying “I didn’t get my notice”, the SC meeting is not compliant because of s 160 of the Evidence Act.
And the interesting part is even if there is an owner or two who do not get their notice it isn’t fatal to anything that will occur. It is just hopeless trying to run this SP in any way other than something that involves dysfunction being the main part of anything that goes on.

The issue is s 160 of the Evidence Act
Sch 2 cl 4 of the Strata Act (SSM Act) says owners need to have their notices 3 days before the meeting.
Nothing about when they get mailed, as long as they get their 3 days.
To me Sch 2 cl 4 is where the compliance occurs, or does not occur.
How does someone convey this to the recalcitrant?

I would love for you to send someone round.
Perhaps in that lies the solution to a lot of strata issue; there needs to be people who can be sent round.
Significant problems is an understatement.
FT have proven useless, CTTT and NCAT useless; yes they are the same thing just a different badge at a different point in time but it gives you an idea of how long the dysfunction has dominated the management.

From CTTT Member Phillipps in 2006
“At the outset let me state that judging by the material in this file and on file SCS 06/44900 this is a strata scheme that is not particularly well organised and in which communications appear to be dysfunctional….”

And nothing has changed despite repeated attempts to get intervention.

Catherine Cusack,  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 18 June 2008;

“The CTTT seems to reward liars, rogues and defaulters, yet it punishes honest people …”

Nearly 20 years on and we still have the same problems.
This SP is not particularly well organised and whatever tag CTTT operate under they still reward the rogues.

Is s 160 of the Evidence Act a pre condition to a compliant SC meeting notice OR is satisfying Sch 2 cl 4 all that really matters?

I call the Act a wish list because the Parliament wish owners to follow it; but generally speaking aren’t going to make them or do anything if they don’t.
Yours is such a good reply because it is the harsh reality of 20 years.
I have a good 20 years as well and I feel anyone with 20 years of strata under their belt would have a similar assessment.
The last sentence is gold.
Let’s hope they never work that out given how poor things are with them being oblivious.

This thread exist mainly on the back of the way the legal profession portray s 76 of the Interpretation Act and s 160 Evidence Act which is essentially the same thing.
Just because the 7 days in those Acts does not exist for a SC notice does not make a SC meeting non compliant, there is another test the notice can pass but no  one goes into that.
Based on the half baked legal commentary people like my agent tell people like my SC that the half baked is the law and required. So we can have all owner with their notice with their proper 3 days yet half the SC crying out of order and non compliant. It’s a clown show and nobody is laughing.

Discussion on the deem served time-frames is all for nothing as case law buffs would know the SC doesn’t even need to send a notice let alone worry if it is on time for their decisions to still be valid.

The only thing that matter is what the NSW Court of Appeal say; unless the High Court say otherwise.

The NSWCA have said in the Yau case:
Beazley P (Leeming JA and Emmett AJA agreeing):

(5)   Non-compliance with the notice requirements for a meeting of the executive committee specified in the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, Sch 3, cl 6 does not result in the invalidity of any resolutions passed at such a meeting. [116], [195], [226]

2 Elizabeth Bay Road Pty Limited v The Owners – Strata Plan No 73943 (2014) 88 NSWLR 488; [2014] NSWCA 409; Barron v Potter [1914] 1 Ch 895; Balog v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1991) 169 CLR 625; [1991] HCA 28; Ryan v Kings Cross RSL Club Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 79, cited.

Guidelines for those on their best behaviour as Jimmy says.
A wish  list as I like to say.

Welcome to strata living for those who think the rules matter.
They mostly don’t matter because there is all too often no consequence for not following them.
If you think must means must in the Strata Act then you are very mistaken about 98% of the time.