This article discusses AGM election irregularities re run requirements and when a new committee election may be necessary.
Question: Of the eight owners who nominated for election at the AGM, one withdrew before voting closed. Owners weren’t advised until after the count. Do we need to call another election?
At our AGM, eight owners were nominated for four ordinary committee member positions. A nominee withdrew two weeks before voting closed. Owners were not advised of this until votes were counted at the AGM. The number of votes received by the nominee was not declared. Does this require another election to be called?
It appears that owners who receive correspondence by post did not receive the agenda and voting papers for the AGM. The legislation requires that owners receive at least 21 days notice of an AGM. Our community manager was told about five owners who had not received their AGM papers in the post. About 45 owners (15%) receive correspondence by post. Does this require another election to be called?
Answer: What difference does it make to the overall scheme of things?
Looking at your questions in turn:
On (1), probably not. There were still sufficient numbers to fill the committee positions. It would be up to an owner to show they suffered detriment or perhaps felt they were misled, by not having the details of the withdrawn nomination notified sooner. Even then I would wonder if an adjudicator would consider there is sufficient ground to intervene. My questions to you: what difference does it make to the overall scheme of things whether the owner withdrew 2 weeks before, or that you don’t know what votes they had?
On (2), quite possibly. The whole point of notices and notice periods for an AGM is so that all owners have the chance to participate. If an owner doesn’t get papers, or doesn’t get them in time, then there is an argument they didn’t have a chance to fully engage in the process. That said, it may come down to the numbers: would that percentage of owners you cite be enough of a difference to change the outcome of any of the votes at the AGM? Put another way: if all the votes at the AGM were close-run things, then yes, that percentage you cite may make a difference and there is a stronger case for the meeting to be re-run.
In a general sense, it is important to remember that simply because there is a fault with how a meeting was run, does not automatically require it to be re-run. Body corporate law is so complex and technical that it is almost impossible for 100% compliance to be achieved (indeed, there is a well-known court case which says essentially that).
This is general information only and not legal advice.
This post appears in the May 2024 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: chris@stratasolve.com.au
P: 0419 805 898
Leave a Reply