An EGM held 6 years ago was voted by valid financial owners. I understand no dissent resolutions, even those who have not paid utilities, can vote. However they were not allowed to vote. Can that resolution be removed now under property law and if so, how?
WA Property Law - Can Resolution be Removed Six Years Later?
- Thread starter steven shiva
- Start date
-
- Tags
- property law
More detail is needed. I found it hard to understand. EG: What was the vote about? What makes it valid 6 years later? Under what rule/law were people not allowed to vote.
This concerns a mixed use strata with retail and office. Majority owners are office owners and 30% owners are from retail.The office owners voted in favour of a no dissent resolution to use common spaces by office owners. However the retail owners were made invalid because some of them who attended the EGM had not paid their utility bills.
Now I understand that even owners in arrears of utility bills should be valid to vote as the resolution needs unanimous decision.
As retail owners were unable to vote the office owners topok common property for private use.
Any help would be appreciated.
Now I understand that even owners in arrears of utility bills should be valid to vote as the resolution needs unanimous decision.
As retail owners were unable to vote the office owners topok common property for private use.
Any help would be appreciated.
First thing is to find and read the body corporate rules and see what it says about voting rights.
Was the vote only for attendees or all owners? Any proxy votes go missing?
You can appeal to SAT. They have jurisdiction to hear strata disputes.
Was the vote only for attendees or all owners? Any proxy votes go missing?
You can appeal to SAT. They have jurisdiction to hear strata disputes.
Thanks Rod,
I checked the voting rights it states:
Except in cases where under the ACT a unanimous resolution is required, no proprietor is entitled to vote at any general meeting, unless all contributions payable in respect of his lot have been duly paid and any other monies recoverable under the ACT by the strata co. from him at the date of the notice given to proprietors of the meeting have been duly paid before the commencement of the meeting.
An Extraordinary general meeting was called:
1.By-law amendment schedule 1 resolve by resolution without dissent. The by-laws in schedule 1 of the strata titles act 1985 as they applied to the strata company be amended as follows:
I checked the voting rights it states:
Except in cases where under the ACT a unanimous resolution is required, no proprietor is entitled to vote at any general meeting, unless all contributions payable in respect of his lot have been duly paid and any other monies recoverable under the ACT by the strata co. from him at the date of the notice given to proprietors of the meeting have been duly paid before the commencement of the meeting.
An Extraordinary general meeting was called:
1.By-law amendment schedule 1 resolve by resolution without dissent. The by-laws in schedule 1 of the strata titles act 1985 as they applied to the strata company be amended as follows:
Sorry rushed reply, phone call came in as I pressed send. Meant to say you 'Might be looking good'.
The vote had to be unanimous according to you, and the rule says unpaid contributions will not prevent owners voting on a matter requiring unanimity.
You appear to have reasonable grounds to declare the vote invalid. Check all your facts. Not sure if it is best renegotiate or go to SAT. You're in a better position to answer that issue.
The vote had to be unanimous according to you, and the rule says unpaid contributions will not prevent owners voting on a matter requiring unanimity.
You appear to have reasonable grounds to declare the vote invalid. Check all your facts. Not sure if it is best renegotiate or go to SAT. You're in a better position to answer that issue.
Do you know if there are time limitations to take up with SAT as no one noticed the error for 6 years?.
Ask SAT. If they say six years, see if you can request an extension due to 'improper conduct'. The Limitation Act 2005 (WA) allows a court to make an extension for certain reasons (ie improper conduct), but I'm not sure what the rules are for SAT. BTW, I'm not sure of the WA definition of 'improper conduct'.
Similar threads
