General meetings are a vital part of body corporate governance in Queensland. They are the forum for key decisions to be made about the management and administration of a community titles scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (BCCM Act) and the applicable Regulation Module.
Sometimes however, questions can arise about who has the right to attend general meetings, and even, whether someone can be lawfully excluded or ejected. Is this permissible under the BCCM Act?
Rights of Attendance and to Vote
Under the BCCM Act, a lot owner has a legal right to attend general meetings of the body corporate. This right is a fundamental incidence of ownership and cannot be arbitrarily removed.
Similarly, if a lot owner has properly appointed a proxy or representative in accordance with the BCCM Act and applicable Regulation Module, that representative also has the right to attend and vote on the owner’s behalf.
There are limited circumstances where the BCCM Act or Regulation Module restricts the right of attendance or to vote.
Unfinancial Owners
If a lot owner is ‘unfinancial’—meaning they owe a body corporate debt (e.g. levies, interest, recovery costs etc), at the time of the meeting, then the lot owner can still attend the general meeting but cannot vote on motions except for resolutions without dissent or for choosing a member of the committee.
Mortgagee In Possession
If a lot owner’s mortgagee has entered into possession, then the mortgagee can claim the right to vote in respect of the lot, by notice to the body corporate secretary. If the mortgagee does so, then the rights of the lot owner are displaced, along with anyone who derived a right to vote through the lot owner (i.e. a proxy or other representative).
In this case the lot owner would also no longer have a right to attend a general meeting; their mortgagee now has that right.
Improperly Appointed Proxies
Under the Regulation Modules, a proxy must be correctly appointed using the approved form and there must also be compliance with relevant limits (e.g. one person cannot hold more than one proxy unless the scheme has more than 20 lots)[1].
If the proxy is invalid, expired, or not lodged on time, the body corporate chairperson can reject the proxy. Barring some other right to attend, if a person does not hold a valid proxy, then they have no right to attend a general meeting.
Disruptive or Abusive Behaviour
If a lot owner or their properly appointed representative engages in abusive, threatening, or seriously disruptive conduct, the chairperson may have the authority to propose a short adjournment, ‘name’ the offender, or propose a procedural motion that the person be removed[2].
The advantage of a removal resolution, is that it will strengthen the chairperson’s hand, including if it is necessary to call the Police to assist to remove the offender from the premises. That course should only, however, be embarked upon if the owner or exclusive occupier of the land on which the meeting is taking place agrees (as the offender remaining on site will then constitute a trespass).
These powers should be exercised cautiously and documented properly, as such action will almost always attract criticism and/or review, both at and after the meeting.
Can a Visitor Be Excluded or Ejected from a General Meeting?
Yes. In Queensland, a visitor who is not a lot owner, proxy, or otherwise a properly appointed lot owner’s representative, has no legal right to attend a general meeting under the BCCM Act or Regulation Module. Their attendance is entirely at the discretion of the meeting.
While the chairperson may propose a visitor be allowed to attend, typically by proposing a procedural motion at the appropriate point during the conduct to of the meeting, it is the (voting) attendees who have the final say; after all, it is their meeting.
It is important to note that the definition of visitors may include:
- friends or family members of lot owners;
- potential buyers or tenants; or
- legal or professional advisors, whether engaged by the Body Corporate or someone else.
While visitors may be permitted to attend as observers or support persons, they should not speak, vote, or participate in the meeting unless express permission is granted; via a procedural motion.
Best practice is to identify proposed visitors before the meeting starts (indeed, it is proper for lot owners to give advance notice of proposed visitors), ask the visitors to wait outside until (and if) they are permitted to enter, for the Chairperson to make the meeting aware of the proposed visitors, for a procedural motion to be proposed to permit the visitors to attend (or not) and on stated terms. The stated terms should include that the visitor’s permission to attend may be revoked, typically by the Chairperson.
Adopting this practice ensures that the Chairperson will then be well placed to exclude or eject a visitor, for breaching the terms of the procedural motion permitting their attendance, or for other valid reasons which may arise, such as:
- purporting to address the meeting without being invited or without approval;
- disruptive, antisocial or threatening behaviour; or
- confidential or private matters being discussed.
Final thoughts
If you are unsure about your right to attend a body corporate meeting or someone else’s right to do so, then Bugden Allen can help you with timely and easy to understand advice.
© Bugden Allen Group Legal Pty Ltd. This is general information only and not legal advice. You should not rely on this information without seeking legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
[1] Section 128(4)(b) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 and section 118(4)(b) of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2020.
[2] Renton, R.E. (2005) Guide for Meetings and Organisations, Volume 2, Guide for Meetings. 8th Edition. Sydney: Lawbook Co, Page 55, [3.27],
This post appears in Strata News #796.
Michael Kleinschmidt
Bugden Allen
E: michael.kleinschmidt@bagl.com.au
P: 07 5406 1280
Jade Marley
Bugden Allen
E: jade.marley@bagl.com.au
P: 07 5406 1280
Evelyn Hearn
Bugden Allen
E: evelyn@bagl.com.au
P: 07 5406 1280
This article has been republished with permission from the author and first appeared on the Bugden Allen website.
I agree entirely with Mr Anderson,
Good Chairs balance the time allowed for the meeting, the interest in the motion being voted on and the number of owners who wish to speak in respect of each motion. They also ensure that no single owner is allowed to dominate the proceedings. Setting parameters at the start of a busy meeting also helps by giving advance notice as to how the meeting will be conducted to enable it to finish on time. Unfortunately, there are some owners who don’t respect parameters. Best practice in this situation is for the Chair to politely but firmly ensure the parameters are adhered to.
Meetings can drag on if one owner seeks to dominate any discussion. This means that interest in the topic by the other owners present diminishes with the downside that attendance numbers at subsequent meetings can decline.
An effective Chair is able to read the room to know when to draw discussion to a close so that a vote can be taken.
My thanks to the Bugden Allen team (Jade, Evelyn, and Michael) for this article. Sensible and insightful as always.
I particularly love the reminder that at general meetings, ie AGMs and EGMs, it is the (voting) attendees who have the final say: after all, it is their meeting. And by implication, it is not the Chair’s meeting.
I wonder how many Cmttees, especially the Chairs, understand and accept this concept, or see the general meetings as just another extension of their personal dominions.
We enjoy (suffer?) two forms of democracy in our strata world, ie 1/Representative Democracy eg the Cmttee and their meetings; and 2/Participative Direct Democracy, ie our general meetings.
It would benefit all parties if owners became more aware that they own the general meetings and resort more to owner motions included in the formal papers, and procedural motions from the floor.
This might stop the current trend – encouraged by some BCMs – towards refusing owners a reasonable opportunity to raise Qs from the floor re the motions, and general business.