Question: A new committee took seven weeks to appoint office bearers. Could the existing chair keep acting as chair in the meantime?
We’re a tier 3 owners corporation. At our AGM, we elected a committee of six: four continuing members, including a chair, and two new members.
No committee meeting was held straight afterwards to elect office bearers. The first committee meeting was held six to seven weeks later, when the existing chair was re-elected. In the meantime, they continued to perform the chair’s role.
One new member says the chair shouldn’t have done this, relying on section 103(5) of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (the Act). Others say the chair was entitled to continue under section 105(2)(b) and section 98(2), because they never stopped being a committee member.
Our questions are:
- Does section 103(5) end a chair’s appointment when a new committee is elected, or does it only cover committee membership?
- If not, does the appointment continue until it’s revoked or replaced under section 105?
- Was the chair entitled to act in the period before the first committee meeting?
- Is the delay in electing office bearers itself a breach of the Act?
Answer: The Act sets no fixed deadline for appointing office bearers after an AGM, and a delay doesn’t automatically invalidate actions taken in the meantime.
The starting point is that an owners corporation with 10 or more lots elects a committee at each annual general meeting under section 100 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic). Under section 103(5), a person elected to the committee holds office until a new committee is elected at the next AGM. In this context, “holds office” should be understood as referring to the person’s position as a member of the committee. The AGM elects the committee but does not, of itself, appoint the committee’s office bearers. Those appointments are made under the separate provisions of the Act, namely section 105 for the chair and section 107 for the secretary.
It’s preferable for the incoming committee to convene promptly after an AGM and formally resolve the appointments of chair and secretary. A delay of approximately 7 weeks is undesirable from a governance perspective. However, the Act does not prescribe a fixed period after the AGM within which committee office bearers must be appointed, nor does it state that a delay automatically invalidates any committee decisions or acts undertaken during the intervening period.
This view is consistent with the general approach adopted by VCAT in Jenkins v OCVM Commercial Pty Ltd (Owners Corporations) [2019] VCAT 1078. In that case, VCAT considered non-compliance with Part 4 of the Act, which regulates meetings and decisions of owners corporations. It held that the Act did not reveal a legislative purpose to invalidate every decision made in breach of Part 4, particularly given that the Act expressly specifies consequences for some, but not all, contraventions. The Tribunal emphasised the statutory purpose of providing a fair and transparent decision-making framework for lot owners and volunteer committees, rather than treating every procedural departure as producing automatic invalidity.
The principles in Jenkins are analogous when considering the consequence of any delay in appointing a chair. The question is likely whether a particular act was within that person’s authority and whether the Act can be ratified, rather than whether every act between the AGM and the first committee meeting is automatically void.
Regardless, the committee should minute a clear appointment under section 105 at its first meeting after the AGM, and should ratify any administrative acts or decisions taken during the intervening period to the extent needed.
This post appears in the November 2026 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Fabienne Loncar
Chambers Russell Lawyers
E: floncar@chambersrussell.com.au
P: 03 8639 9804
Leave a Reply