Chris Irons from Strata Solve, discusses key aspects of a recent Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner’s Office adjudication order, Circa Metro QBCCMCmr 114 that highlights some common misconceptions about body corporate general meetings and provides clarity for committees. The order, issued on April 2, 2025, dealt with an application for interim orders disputing the validity of an annual general meeting conducted electronically and resolutions regarding repair of a door. Chris Irons unpacked the order, emphasising several crucial takeaways for strata committees.
QLD: Recent order myth busts body corporate general meetings | Chris Irons, Strata Solve – April 2025
The need for flexibility and agility in conducting body corporate general meetings
One of the initial points Chris Irons addressed was the need for flexibility and agility in conducting general meetings. The Circa Metro case saw the body corporate shift to a virtual meeting due to a cyclone impacting the planned physical location (the BBQ area). The adjudicator acknowledged the reasonableness of this decision given the circumstances, highlighting that even with prescriptive legislative processes, meetings must adapt to unforeseen events. For committees, this underscores the importance of having contingency plans for meeting arrangements, especially during adverse weather conditions.
Electronic voting and electronic attendance
The discussion then moved to electronic meetings, a key point of contention in the Circa Metro case. The applicant argued the meeting was invalid as no ordinary resolution permitted electronic attendance. Chris clarified the crucial distinction between electronic voting and electronic attendance, noting they are treated separately under Queensland legislation. While an ordinary resolution should authorise electronic attendance, the adjudicator in this case found the meeting acceptable, considering prior electronic meetings held without objection and the increased voter participation.
Debate in generally meetings – not an unrestricted right
We also addressed the applicant’s concerns about restricted participation and discussion in the electronic format, particularly issues with muting and the lack of general business discussion. Chris emphasised that the primary aim is to maximise voter participation, which the electronic meeting in this case achieved with higher attendance. Regarding discussion, while debate is generally expected in meetings, it’s not an unrestricted right. The adjudicator noted the availability of a chat function as a means for attendees to communicate. Importantly, Chris clarified that under Queensland strata legislation, there is no such thing as “general business”. While discussions can occur, no binding decisions should be made during this segment, and any matters requiring action should be formally proposed as motions. Committees should be clear with owners about the purpose and limitations of general business discussions.
Technical defects may not invalidate the meeting
Another significant point raised was that technical defects in a meeting procedure do not automatically invalidate the entire meeting. The adjudicator in Circa Metro assessed whether any technical deviations had a material impact on attendees’ ability to vote or the decisions made. Chris reiterated that the focus tends to be on whether detriment was caused to a significant number of people. For committees, this means that minor procedural errors may not be grounds for overturning meeting outcomes, but significant issues that disadvantage owners could be.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the discussion with Chris Ions regarding the Circa Metro adjudication order provides valuable insights for body corporate committees in Queensland. It underscores the need for adaptability, a clear understanding of electronic meeting protocols, managing expectations around discussion and general business, and recognising that minor technical defects don’t always invalidate meetings. By understanding these principles, committees can better navigate the complexities of general meetings and reduce the likelihood of disputes. Remember that adjudicator’s orders are specific to each case and should be considered within their particular context.
Presenter
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: chris@stratasolve.com.au
P: 0419 805 898
Adjudication order Circa Metro QBCCMCmr 114
Adjudication order, Circa Metro QBCCMCmr 114.
This post appears in Strata News #740.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- QLD: Q&A Meeting Notice Periods and Electronic Meetings
- QLD: Resolving general meeting disputes through conciliation
Visit Strata Committee Concerns OR Strata Legislation QLD.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.
Stephen, I am the resident at Circa Metro that lodged the request for adjudication, and the issuing of interim orders. I am extremely disappointed regarding the Adjudicators decision, as quite simply the committee misinformed the adjudicator in their responses. They claimed EGM’s have consistently been held in an electronic format for the last three years.
Only one EGM has been held electronically using Microsoft Teams, and that was when the commissioner’s office granted temporary authority during Covid-19, which has since been revoked. Our committee has confused electronic voting and the legislation that states an owner will be deemed as being in attendance, with an owner electronically voting and concurrently attending the meeting in person. Our body corporate has only ever passed motions to allow electronic issuing of notices and electronic voting. I have brought the actions of the committee to the Adjudicators attention and will wait to see how that impacts on the final orders that are still to be issued.
While an ordinary resolution should authorise electronic attendance, the adjudicator in this case found the meeting acceptable, considering prior electronic meetings held without objection and the increased voter participation.
“The activities of the strata plan are now under scrutiny and the present failure to comply with the provisions of the Act is not excused by a history of non-compliance.”
S Corley Member CTTT Finney v Owners Corporation SP 12104 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2011] NSWCTTT 258 (21 June 2011)
So what if they had done it in the past, was it compliant then?
What sort of garbage reason is “did it before and no one said anything”
Stephen, this “did it before and no-one said anything” is like ‘legal fiction’* and doesn’t equate with any ‘statute of limitations’. Then there’s ‘implied consent’ where a party who fails to object in a timely fashion is deemed to have waived their right to object and cannot raise the objection on appeal.
*’Tacit assumption’ and ‘legal fiction’ are both impudently-imbued with the chicanery of ‘elegance of natural laws’ to help get them over the ‘legally-ludicrous line’.
Hi Stephen
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Strata Solve:
Thank you for the comment. It’s important to note that strata legislation differs across state and territories. So, too, does case law in relation to that legislation. You have cited a case that appears to be from NSW, while the adjudication order we spoke about is from Queensland. Different legislation, different considerations and different decision-making processes.
In Queensland, adjudicators – who are quasi-judicial decision-makers – are required to make orders that are ‘just and equitable’ in the circumstances. Which, in some cases, will result in an order that might seem, well, ‘surprising’. One of the things that adjudicators routinely do, and it’s something we talk about in the video, is to consider just how much detriment was caused by a possible contravention and whether that’s enough to warrant overturning things.
Having said that, we can see your point.