Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 (Standard Module)

GENERAL MEETING PROCEDURES - where an owner requested an EGM to consider motions - where the body corporate considered the EGM request was not legislatively compliant - whether the body corporate was obligated to include the motions on the agenda of the next available general meeting.

Standard Module, ss 84, 86

• [1] The applicant is the owner of Lot 1 at Palmerston Tower. She has brought this application against the body corporate for failing to include her motions at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). The relevant facts in the lead up to the dispute are as follows:
  1. on 14 February 2025, the applicant requested an EGM to consider 8 motions for the removal of committee members;
  2. on 24 February 2025, the applicant again proposed the same 8 motions but this time, the request for the meeting and the motions appeared to be supported by 14 lot owners;
  3. on 9 March 2025, the committee communicated to owners that it would not be calling the EGM as the request for the meeting did not comply with legislative requirements;
  4. on 11 March 2025, the committee issued a notice for an EGM to be held on 2 April 2025 (11 March Notice). The agenda for this meeting related to other matters and did not include the 8 motions proposed by the applicant and supporting owners.
• [2] The applicant argues that the committee should have included her 8 motions on the 11 March Notice, and that its failure to do so was a contravention of the legislation.
• [3] In determining this matter, I will consider:
  1. whether the committee was obliged to include the applicant's motions on the agenda of the 11 March Notice and if so;
  2. what orders are appropriate in the circumstances.

• [4] This is a dispute between the applicant owner and the body corporate regarding an alleged contravention of the Act. I am satisfied it falls within the legislative dispute resolution provisions.[1] As an adjudicator, I may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve the dispute.[2]
• [5] Initially, the applicant sought 'interim' orders that the 11 March Notice be withdrawn and that a new EGM notice including the applicant's motions be issued. I dismissed this request as the orders sought were not temporary or injunctive in nature, and I was not satisfied that urgent interim relief was warranted in the circumstances.
• [6] The application seeks a final order (in effect) as follows:

If satisfied that a decision made by the committee to issue the Notice of EGM on 11 March 2025 that did not include the Motions 1-8 previously submitted by owners was done incorrectly, then an order declaring that the decision was at all times void.

• [7] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all lot owners in the scheme. The committee made a submission. The applicant inspected the submission and made a reply. I have now reviewed the submitted material, the relevant aspects of which will be discussed below.

• [8] As I set out in my interim decision, section 84(1) of the Standard Module provides that an EGM must be called if a notice requesting the meeting to consider and decide motions proposed in the notice is -

1. signed by or for the owners of at least 25% of all the lots in the scheme; and
2. given to the secretary (or chairperson in the secretary's absence).

• [9] A requested EGM must be called within 14 days and must be held within 6 weeks of the notice being given.[3]
• [10] In this case, I note the committee did not call the EGM as it believes the applicant's request did not meet the statutory requirements. The committee submits:
  1. the signed motions were inconsistent, with 3 different versions being signed by different owners;
  2. multiple forms did not clearly state the owner, lot number, date and signature; and
  3. some of the forms were signed by owners digitally. The committee requested but did not receive the required proof of signature verifications.
• [11] The committee however, failed to consider section 86 of the Standard Module which provides (underlining mine):

(1) A motion for consideration at a general meeting of the body corporate may be submitted at any time by -

(2) Subsection (3) only applies in relation to the first annual general meeting of a body corporate.

(3) If a motion is submitted by a member of the body corporate before the first annual general meeting, it must be included on the general meeting agenda if it is practicable to include the motion.

(4) Subsections (5) to (8) apply in relation to all other general meetings of a body corporate.

(5) If a motion is submitted, including by a member of the body corporate in response to an invitation under subsection (8), it must, subject to subsections (6) and (7), be included on the next general meeting agenda on which it is practicable to include the motion.

(6) A motion submitted by a member of the body corporate may be included on the agenda for an annual general meeting only if the secretary receives the motion before the end of the body corporate's financial year immediately preceding the meeting.

(7) However, a motion of a following type must not be included on the agenda for a general meeting if the motion's inclusion would result in the body corporate considering a motion of that type more than once in a financial year for the body corporate -

(a) a motion proposing that a regulation module be applied to the community titles scheme that is different from the regulation module identified in the scheme's community management statement;

(b) a motion proposing that the remuneration paid to a particular service contractor be changed;

(c) a motion proposing that the engagement of a person as a service contractor, or the authorisation of a person as a letting agent, be amended if, as a result of the amendment, the engagement or authorisation would include a right or option of extension or renewal.

(8) If a notice is forwarded to members of the body corporate inviting nominations for committee member positions to be filled at an annual general meeting of the body corporate, the members must also be invited to submit motions for inclusion on the agenda for the meeting.

• [12] As a lot owner and member of the body corporate, the applicant is entitled to submit motions at any time, and those motions must be included on the agenda of the next general meeting (unless there is some reason why it is not practicable to do so). Accordingly, even if the committee was of the view that the applicant's EGM request did not strictly comply with the legislative requirements (though in my view, on its face the request appears substantially compliant), the committee was still obliged to include the applicant's motions on the agenda of the next available EGM, that being on the 11 March Notice.
• [13] In her reply to submissions, the applicant provided the following further information:
  1. the EGM called pursuant to the 11 March Notice was cancelled;
  2. a new EGM notice was issued for a meeting to be held on 23 April 2025. This notice also did not contain the applicant's motions;
  3. the committee subsequently issued a third notice of EGM to be held on 30 May 2025. This agenda included the applicant's motions but failed to include a committee nomination form.
• [14] At my request, the committee provided a copy of the minutes of the EGM held on 30 May 2025. The applicant's motions were considered at that meeting - 6 of the motions failed, and 2 were ruled out of order. As the applicant's motions have now been considered at an EGM, I do not consider there is any real dispute left to be resolved. I understand the applicant believes committee nomination forms should have been included with the EGM notice, however I see little merit to this argument particularly as the motions to remove committee members were defeated. In any event, whether or not the nomination forms should have been included with the EGM notice is not relevant to determining the current application. The applicant originally brought this application disputing the committee's failure to include her motions in the 11 March Notice. That meeting was cancelled and ultimately, the applicant's motions have now been considered at the EGM of 30 May 2025. The substantive dispute is now resolved.

• [15] The committee's failure to include the applicant's motions in the 11 March Notice was a contravention of section 86(5) of the Standard Module. However, the applicant's motions have since been considered at the EGM of 30 May 2025. I see no basis to make any orders against the body corporate in this instance. The application is dismissed.

[1] Sections 227 and 228 of the Act

[3] Section 84(3) of the Standard Module