The Lakes - Cairns [2025] QBCCMCmr 123 (11 April 2025)

The Lakes - Cairns [2025] QBCCMCmr 123

The Body Corporate for Koolivoo Apartments (applicants)

The Body Corporate for The Lakes - Cairns (respondent)

AGM RESOLUTIONS - MOTION TO EXTEND DURATION OF CARETAKING SERVICE CONTRACTOR FOR A PRINCIPAL BODY CORPORATE BY SECRET BALLOT

WHETHER SUBSIDIARY BODIES CORPORATE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE BY SECRET BALLOT HOW TO DIRECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ON PBC HOW TO VOTE.

Act, ss 276; Standard Module, ss 100, 103, 135.

I HEREBY CERTIFY this is a true copy of the order and reasons for decision.

[1] The Body Corporate for The Lakes Cairns CTS 28090 ("the Scheme") is a layered scheme containing of 18 subsidiary schemes and is governed by the Standard Module.3
[2] The applicants are subsidiary bodies corporate and the Respondent is the Principal body corporate.
[3] The applicants seek the following outcomes:
1. A declaration that the PBC has not acted reasonably in not affording the subsidiary schemes time to call an EGM to resolve by secret ballot the direction to give to its subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote on motion 12.2 at the 2024 AGM which requires votes to be cast by secret ballot;
2. An order that, prior to the PBC submitting motion 12.2 to be reconsidered or any other motion to engage or vary the engagement of a service contractor, that the Principal Scheme afford sufficient time for each subsidiary scheme to call and hold an EGM to hold a secret ballot to give a direction to the respective subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote so that all voters have a free choice as to whether they reveal how they vote with respect to motions regarding the engagement or variation of the engagement of a service contractor.
[4] All lots in the Principal Scheme are subsidiary schemes, and the subsidiary schemes, which are listed below, contain 391 lots in total:

[5] The scheme was created in June 2000 and originally regulated by the Accommodation Module Regulation. However at an AGM held on 28 September 2016, it was resolved that the Principal scheme would be regulated by the Standard Module Regulation and a new Community Management Statement was recorded on 20 December 2016.
[6] On or about 1 July 2000, the Principal Scheme entered into a Management Agreement with The Lakes Management Company Pty Ltd ("the Initial Manager").[1] The term of the Management Agreement was 25 years, expiring on 30 June 2025.
[7] The Management Agreement was assigned by Deed of Assignment dated 27 August 2014, from the Initial Manager to Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd ("the Current Manager").[2]
[8] The Current Manager was also assigned the caretaking and letting agreements for all of the subsidiary schemes in the Principal Scheme, at or around the same time that it was assigned the Management Agreement in the Principal Scheme.
[9] The applicants say there has been a history of significant legal disputes between the Principal Scheme and the Current Manager since 2014. These disputes have included a claim in relation to electricity charges, remuneration review under the Management Agreement, issue of numerous Remedial Action Notices for failure to comply with the Management Agreement including non-performance of duties or performance below an acceptable standard and the appointment of representatives without the prior consent of the Principal Scheme.
[10] The applicants also say that the Current Manager and its employees have previously sought "retribution" against those in subsidiary schemes who have criticised the Current Manager with respect to its performance of duties under the Management Agreement, by pursuing defamation claims in court against the Principal Scheme, committee members of the Principal Scheme (Raymond Veal and Christine Kolenc) and ZACK's Strata Management. A copy of the court claims filed on 4 July 2019[3] and 15 July 2020[4] was provided.
[11] The financial year end date for the Principal Scheme is 30 June and the Annual General Meeting for the Principal Scheme is therefore required to be held by 30 September in each year.[5]
[12] On 10 June 2024, TCM Strata, the Body Corporate Manager for the Principal Scheme ("TCM"), sent an email to the subsidiary schemes giving notice of invitation for Nominations and a reminder that lot owner motions were to be submitted to TCM before the end of the financial year.[6]
[13] On 28 June 2024 the Current Manager sent an email to TCM submitting a motion for inclusion on the agenda for the PBC 2024 AGM[7]. The email states the following:

We ask that the attached motion be submitted to the 2024 PBC AGM on behalf of owner David Sun/ Sunshine Australia Pty Ltd.

[14] This motion proposed that a deed of variation be entered into to give the Current Manager an option for a further term of twelve months and that the Current Manager be paid $875,977 plus the remuneration review amount for the twelve months.
[15] More specifically, Motion 12.2 read as follows:

That, subject to the payment of the Body Corporate's reasonable legal and administrative costs associated with the content of this resolution by Sunshine Group Australia Pty Ltd ACN 168 390 083 ('the Manager'), the Body Corporate agree with the Manager to vary the Management Agreement dated 2000, to extend the term of the Management Agreement with an option period of one year (1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026), by entering into the attached Deed of Variation with the Manager, and that the Chairperson or Secretary plus any other member of the Committee be authorised to affix the common seal of the Body Corporate to such deed.

[16] On 30 June 2024, Christine Kolenc of ZACK's Strata sent an email to TCM asking if there had been any offer or negotiations with the Current Manager in relation to the Management Agreement.[8] She conveyed the position of the 8 subsidiary schemes that she managed, that they did not support an extension of the existing Management Agreement with the Current Manager, and that proper investigation should be undertaken so that the grounds and facilities at the Lakes could be properly maintained at a reduced cost.
[17] On 23 July 2024, Christine Kolenc of ZACK's Strata sent a further email to TCM as there had been no response to her 30 June 2024 email[9].
[18] On 11 August 2024 Ms Kolenc sent a further email to TCM[10] saying that all the subsidiary schemes under Zack's Strata management had received offers of a 12 month caretaking agreement and asked:

"Has there been a similar offer made to The Lakes Cairns CTS 28090 ("PBC") and, if so, can you please provide our office with a copy so that the schemes under our management can properly consider the offers that have been made to them."

[19] On 14 August 2024 TCM sent an email to Zack's Strata[11] saying:

"The committee for the PBC is presently taking legal advice and will thereafter consider its position. Decisions made by the PBC committee are made by majority resolution either in full committee meeting or by VOCM. As you know, lot owners will receive a copy of the minutes of any committee decision made by the PBC in accordance with the legislative requirements and in that way, will be kept informed of any developments."

[20] On 14 August 2024 Ms Kolenc responded to TCM[12] by email saying inter alia:

"Withholding details of a PBC offer, which in turn may prevent a subsidiary scheme from putting forward their individual offer for consideration, may prejudice our schemes unfairly and, further, may also be considered a prejudice to SGA themselves.Please advise how many pages the offer from SGA to the PBC consists of so that we can pay the required fee for a copy of records pursuant to the Act."

[21] On 3 September 2024, Ms Kolenc sent an email to TCM [13] pointing out problems with the proposed agenda for the 2024 AGM. In particular Ms Kolenc stated:

Further to the above there are concerns with respect to how Subsidiary Schemes can comply with the requirements of legislation with respect to voting upon original motion 11 (Variation to Agreement - by Secret Ballot) if the meeting is to be held on 30th September. I refer to my correspondence to you in April 2024 and your assurances that the PBC will be conducting all General Meetings pursuant to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and its associated Regulations. Considering that my client schemes require much longer than a 21-day period of notice of the meeting.

[22] On 6 September 2024 TCM sent an email to all owners issuing the meeting notice for the 2024 AGM for the Principal scheme[14] despite not having addressed the issues raised by Ms Kolenc.
[23] On 30 September 2024 the motion was comprehensively defeated.
[24] The applicant contends that Motion 12.2 was not conducted in a way to preserve the secrecy of the voter and how they voted. Section 135(2)(b) of the Standard Module required motion 12.2 to be decided by Secret Ballot. The applicants say the problem created by section 135(2)(b) of the Standard Module, is that the provisions of the Standard Module do not make proper provision for the conduct of a secret ballot where the body corporate is a principal body corporate in a layered scheme.
[25] The applicants note that in the case Atlantis West [2020] QBCCMCmr 344 (25 June 2020) the adjudicator stated:

[30] The purpose of the secret ballot process is to separate the information about a voter from their vote so the body corporate can ensure each vote has been cast by a person entitled to vote but the way in which the person votes is confidential. Providing the voting process is conducted correctly, there should be no way of connecting a particular vote to a voter from any of the ballot documentation.

[26] Section 103(6) of the Standard Module provides

_The subsidiary scheme representative must represent scheme B's body corporate - _

(a) in the way scheme B's body corporate directs; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a), in a way that is in the best interests of scheme B.

[27] In order to "direct" a subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote, the subsidiary scheme must pass a resolution either in general meeting or by committee meeting directing how the representative is to vote.
[28] In Lakeview [2011] QBCCMCmr 369 the referee said at paragraph [7]:

[7] The body corporate can direct its nominee to act by way of a general meeting resolution or a committee resolution, provided the resolution is validly passed.

[29] The Lakeview case involved s140(6) of the Integrated Resort Development Act (IRDA)

which is in similar terms as section 103(6) of the Standard Module and provides:

_A nominee appointed by a subsidiary body corporate must represent the subsidiary body corporate - _

(a) in the way the subsidiary body corporate directs; and

(b) (subject to paragraph (a), in a way that is in the best interests of the subsidiary body corporate.

[30] As the subsidiary scheme is required to pass a resolution to direct the subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote, the applicants say that it is impossible to lawfully conduct a secret ballot unless the resolution directing the subsidiary scheme representative is also passed by way of secret ballot. Unless the subsidiary scheme resolution directing how the subsidiary scheme representative to vote on motion 12.2 is held by secret ballot, it will be very easy to connect a particular vote to a voter from the voting documentation. The subsidiary scheme is required to retain these voting records in compliance with the Regulation Module. Any interested person including the Current Manger is able to search the voting records pursuant to the provisions of the BCCM Act. The applicants argue that because the identity of the voter (committee member or lot owner in an open ballot) and how they voted on the resolution directing how the subsidiary scheme representative is to vote on Motion 12.2 is not able to be kept secret.
[31] The applicant says this creates an unacceptable risk that a Caretaker/Letting agent can search the subsidiary scheme records to ascertain how members in the subsidiary scheme voted or the committee members voted on the resolution to give directions to the Subsidiary Scheme representative on how to vote on the secret ballot to vary the engagement of the caretaker. The explanatory note on page 65 for the Explanatory Notes to the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 stated the reason for the provision of secret ballots for motions regarding variations to letting agreements and service contracts as "The secret ballot will minimise the influence of the letting agent or service contractor over the granting of the extension".
[32] The Current Manager has previously commenced defamation proceedings against persons who have criticised them and the Current Manager can easily ascertain how subsidiary scheme members have voted on the direction to the Subsidiary Scheme representative to vote on motion 12.2.
[33] The applicants argue that the only effective way to cause compliance with the principle of secrecy as required by the holding of a secret ballot in the principal body corporate of a layered scheme, is to allow the subsidiary schemes to also cast their votes, on how to direct the subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote, by way of secret ballot at an EGM or AGM held by each subsidiary scheme.
[34] The PBC committee caused the meeting notice for the 2024 AGM to be issued on 6 September 2024 for the 2024 AGM to be held on 30 September 2024. The applicants say that the PBC Committee did not provide enough notice or time to the subsidiary schemes to call an EGM to pass a resolution by a secret ballot to give direction to the respective subsidiary scheme representatives on how to vote on motion 12.2 of the Principal Scheme 2024 AGM.
[35] It is argued that the PBC by not allowing sufficient time for subsidiary schemes to hold an EGM to cast a secret ballot on how the scheme is to vote on the Principal Scheme secret ballot is forcefully exposing the committee members of the subsidiary schemes to possible retribution as there is no way that they can cause a vote by their scheme to be kept secret.
[36] While the motion was comprehensively defeated at the AGM, it was in circumstances where the subsidiary schemes in exercising its vote were forced to expose the identity of the members of the committee voting at the committee level to give directions to their respective representatives on the Principal Scheme.
[37] The only alternative afforded to the subsidiary schemes was to not vote at all if they wanted to preserve the confidentially and secrecy of the way members voted. This is contrary to the intent of the operation of a secret ballot. The provisions were meant to afford the opportunity for voters to exercise their vote willingly without risk of loss of the confidentiality of how they voted and also to protect them from any retribution.
[38] Accordingly, in every case where a motion is proposed to be considered by secret ballot at a Principal Scheme general meeting, the Principal Scheme acting reasonably should afford sufficient time for the subsidiary schemes to call and hold the EGM to make a decision by way of a secret ballot to give directions to the subsidiary schemes representative on how to vote on the Principal Scheme secret ballot motion. This would then preserve the confidentiality of the votes and protect them from any retribution.

[39] Pursuant to section 243 of the Act, the Principal Body Corporate and each subsidiary body corporate, other than the applicants, were invited to make submissions regarding the application.
[40] A subsidiary body corporate made a submission supporting the application.
[41] A submission was received from the Principal Body Corporate (PBC) which submits that the Orders sought by the Applicant should not be made and the Application should be dismissed.
[42] The PBC opposes the Applicant's request for a declaration that the PBC acted unreasonably by not affording the subsidiary schemes time to call an EGM to resolve by secret ballot the direction to give to its subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote on Motion 12.2, which required votes to be cast by secret ballot.
[43] It says it was not told, in the email from Ms Kolenc on 3 September 2024, why her client schemes required "much longer than a 21 day period of notice of the meeting" only that "there are concerns with respect to how subsidiary schemes can comply with the requirements of legislation with respect to voting upon original motion 11 (as it then was) (Variation to Agreement-by Secret Ballot) if the meeting is to be held on 30 September."
[44] Subsection 103(6) of the Standard Module provides that the subsidiary scheme's representative must represent scheme B's body corporate:

(a) in the way scheme B's body corporate directs; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a), in a way that is in the best interests of scheme B.

[45] The respondent says given that section 103(6) does not require a general meeting of the subsidiary scheme to be called and held in order to direct the subsidiary scheme representative as to how to vote on any PBC motion, it follows that the subsidiary scheme representative may be instructed by its own committee, or informed by an earlier decision of the subsidiary scheme general meeting which directs the representative as to how to vote on a particular motion.
[46] In the present case, on 30 June 2024[15] Ms Kolenc sent an email to the strata manager for the PBC wherein she advised that:

Subsidiary Schemes under the management of Zack's Strata are not in favour of extending the current management agreement, rather preferring to explore alternative regimes of management.

[47] The PBC argues that if the Applicant was able to approve their strata manager to send this correspondence on their behalf, they ought reasonably be expected to have been in a position to direct their representatives to vote in relation to Motion 12.2 accordingly, in the 2024 AGM. No further time was needed to establish the position of the Applicants in relation to Motion 12.2, by secret ballot vote in an EGM or otherwise, as by their own admission, it was known as early as 30 June 2024.

(a) a general meeting decision of a subsidiary scheme is not required in order to comply with section 103(6) of the Standard Module.

(b) section 100(1) of the Act provides that a decision of the committee is a decision of the Body Corporate. Therefore the relevant subsidiary scheme committee can provide the direction of the body corporate required by section 103(6) of the Standard Module.

[48] The respondent says that therefore, it is evident that:

(a) the Applicant schemes had already held a general meeting to decide upon the direction to give their representative in relation to a proposal to extend the Management Agreement (if the issue was deemed a restricted issue by the Applicant committees); or

(b) the committee for the Applicant schemes had decided it was not a restricted issue requiring a general meeting to decide how to direct their representative to vote in relation to a proposal to extend the Management Agreement.

[49] The respondent notes that there has been a history of the Applicants not requiring a general meeting of their subsidiary scheme to be in a position to instruct their representative as to how to vote on PBC Motions. It set out in tabular form, the last four (4) years' data in relation to PBC AGMs, including the date the Notice of AGM was issued and the date the AGM was held. The PBC says that it is reasonable to infer that the practice of the Applicants and the other subsidiary schemes is for the relevant subsidiary scheme committee to direct their representative how to vote.
[50] In relation to the notion put forward by the Applicant schemes that a secret ballot is required for the subsidiary schemes to direct their representative as to how to vote upon the motion, the PBC submits that if a committee meeting is utilised to decide the direction to be given, as has been the practice of the Applicant schemes at least for the past four (4) years, it is not possible to see the votes cast (specifically, who cast which vote) by viewing minutes of committee meetings.
[51] The respondent says it is not a reasonable expectation by the subsidiary schemes that the PBC AGM should be called later than the statutory timeframe of three (3) months from the end of the financial year to satisfy a new requirement to call and hold and EGM to direct the subsidiary scheme representative as to how to vote when it is not a requirement of the legislation.
[52] The applicants were afforded an opportunity to reply to the respondents' submissions. They argue that on any resolution at a general meeting in the Principal Scheme, the subsidiary schemes are required to pass a resolution for each motion in terms of giving instructions to the representative on how to vote on each motion. The Respondent is acting unreasonably where it does not afford the subsidiary schemes sufficient time to be able to hold the relevant meeting to pass resolutions to provide instructions to its representative.
[53] The Applicants say they are merely seeking that the Respondent provide sufficient notice of a meeting where a secret ballot is proposed so, that the subsidiary scheme has time to call and hold a general meeting of its owners to cast votes pursuant to a secret ballot on how the subsidiary scheme is to direct its representative to vote on the principal scheme resolution to be decided by a secret ballot. The extra notice required is potentially an extra 14 days.
[54] At paragraph 4 of the Respondent's submissions, they say that the subsidiary schemes have a "free choice as to whether how they vote with respect to motions". However, for a secret ballot, the mere voting by the committee does not achieve the intention of parliament of secrecy because the identity of the committee and how they vote can be ascertained leaving them open to the risk of retribution. The votes cast on committee resolutions is recorded and are searchable as body corporate records.
[55] Therefore, if the Respondent does not give sufficient notice of a proposed meeting that is to consider a secret ballot motion, to enable the subsidiary scheme to hold a secret ballot the only real choice that the Applicant has, to maintain secrecy, is to abstain from voting, which is not reasonable.

[56] In summary the applicants seek the following outcomes:
1. A declaration that the PBC acted unreasonably by not affording the subsidiary schemes time to call an EGM to resolve by secret ballot how to direct their representatives how to vote on motion 12.2 at the 2024 AGM
2. An order that, prior to the PBC submitting a motion to engage or vary the engagement of a service contractor, that the PBC afford sufficient time for each subsidiary scheme to hold an EGM to conduct a secret ballot to give a direction to the respective subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote.
[57] It is evident that on 6 September, members of the PBC were given notice of the AGM for the PBC, to be held on Monday, 30 September 2024 at 10:00 AM.[16] Therefore at least 21 days notice of the AGM was given.
[58] Included on the agenda was Motion 12.2 which read as follows:

[59] Section 135 of the Standard Module provides that the term of an existing agreement may be extended by way of an amendment (variation) to the agreement. A motion proposing such amendment must be approved by ordinary resolution decided by secret ballot.
[60] Representation of subsidiary bodies corporate in layered schemes is dealt with in section 103 of the standard module which provides as follows:

(1) This section applies if the community titles scheme ("scheme B") is a lot included in another community titles scheme ("scheme A").

(2) The body corporate for scheme B must ensure that at all times there is a person (the

"subsidiary scheme representative" ) appointed by the committee for scheme B's body corporate to represent the body corporate for scheme B on scheme A's body corporate.

(3) The subsidiary scheme representative must be a member of the committee for scheme B's body corporate and, if the committee does not appoint the representative, is the chairperson of the body corporate for scheme B.

(4) The first person to be appointed under this section must be appointed as soon as practicable after the body corporate for scheme B becomes a member of scheme A's body corporate.

(5) The appointment of the subsidiary scheme representative has no effect until written notice of the appointment is received by the secretary of the body corporate for scheme A.

(6) The subsidiary scheme representative must represent scheme B's body corporate -

(a) in the way scheme B's body corporate directs; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a) , in a way that is in the best interests of scheme B.

[61] The applicants argue that unless the subsidiary scheme resolution directing how the subsidiary scheme representative to vote on motion 12.2 is held by secret ballot, it will be very easy to connect a particular vote to a voter from the voting documentation. The subsidiary scheme is required to retain these voting records in compliance with the Regulation Module. Any interested person including the Current Manger is able to search the voting records pursuant to the provisions of the BCCM Act. Accordingly, the secret ballot at the principal scheme AGM is pointless. Because the identity of the voter (committee member or lot owner in an open ballot) and how they voted on the resolution directing how the subsidiary scheme representative is to vote on Motion 12.2 is not able to be kept secret.
[62] While I believe there is some truth to the applicants' argument, I am not persuaded that I should make a declaration that the PBC acted unreasonably in not affording the subsidiary schemes time to call an EGM to resolve by secret ballot how to direct their representatives how to vote on motion 12.2 at the 2024 AGM .
[63] Section 103(6) of the Standard Module provides

The subsidiary scheme representative must represent scheme B's body corporate -

(a) in the way scheme B's body corporate directs; and

(b) subject to paragraph (a), in a way that is in the best interests of scheme B.

[64] I am of the view that in order to "direct" a subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote, the subsidiary scheme must pass a resolution either in general meeting or by committee meeting directing how the representative is to vote. Section 103(6) does not specifically require a general meeting of the subsidiary to direct the subsidiary scheme representative as to how to vote on any PBC motion. [17]
[65] It is noted that in their email dated 3 September 2024, ZACK's Strata advised TCM that their client schemes required "much longer than a 21 day period of notice of the meeting". However there would not appear to be any indication that ZACK's Strata requested additional time to enable the subsidiaries to hold their own general meeting, only that "there are concerns with respect to how subsidiary schemes can comply with the requirements of legislation with respect to voting upon original motion 11 (as it then was) if the meeting is to be held on 30 September".
[66] The question for my consideration is whether the PBC has failed to act reasonably in not giving more time. The onus rests with the applicant to establish that the PBC failed to act reasonably in the circumstances.
[67] In the present case there is no suggestion that the subsidiary scheme representatives did not represent the subsidiary schemes in the way that their body corporate directed. It is possible that the subsidiary scheme representative were instructed by their own committees, or informed by an earlier decision of the subsidiary schemes general meetings which directed their representative how to vote on a particular motion.
[68] Further the PBC notes that for at least the past four (4) years, it has been the practice of the subsidiary scheme committees to direct their representative how to vote.
[69] For the above reasons I do not propose to declare that the PBC acted unreasonably by not affording the subsidiary schemes time to call an EGM to resolve by secret ballot how to direct their representatives how to vote on motion 12.2 at the 2024 AGM. I do not believe that the PBC has failed to comply with the statutory notice periods associated with the general meeting of the PBC.
[70] The next matter for consideration is whether to make the second requested order that prior to the PBC submitting a motion to engage or vary the engagement of a service contractor, that the PBC afford sufficient time for each subsidiary scheme to hold an EGM to conduct a secret ballot to give a direction to the respective subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote.
[71] As stated above, I am of the view that in order to "direct" a subsidiary scheme representative, the subsidiary scheme may pass a resolution either in general meeting or by committee meeting, directing how the representative is to vote. Section 103(6) does not require a general meeting of the subsidiary to direct the subsidiary scheme representative as to how to vote on any PBC motion.
[72] The legislation expressly contemplates the existence of layered schemes but has not made special provision for additional notice periods in layered schemes to facilitate SBC participation in PBC general meetings. In particular, I note that neither the Act nor the standard module make specific provision for the conduct of secret ballots of SBC's in layered schemes.
[73] The applicants believe that the SBC's should have the opportunity to pass a resolution (by secret ballot) to direct the subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote on a secret ballot at PBC level. The applicants say that if the decision is made by a SBC committee, the identity of the committee and how they voted could often be ascertained, leaving them open to the risk of retribution.
[74] On the other hand, the PBC argues that it is not a reasonable expectation that the PBC AGM should be called later than the statutory timeframe of three (3) months from the end of the financial year, to enable each SBC to hold an EGM.
[75] However, I do not believe that this is what is being suggested by the applicants. The Applicants say they are merely seeking that the Respondent distribute its meeting notices potentially 14 days earlier, where the PBC is considering an issue that is required to be decided by secret ballot.
[76] I do not consider that such a request would be unreasonable.
[77] However I do not believe I am able to make a blanket order requiring that prior to the PBC submitting any motion to engage or vary the engagement of a service contractor, (which requires a secret ballot), the PBC is to afford sufficient time for each subsidiary scheme to hold an EGM to conduct a secret ballot to give a direction to their representative. My role as an adjudicator is to resolve existing disputes, not to make orders about possible future events or hypothetical situations : see Daish v Body Corporate for Birchgrove CTS 100 [2013] QCATA 13.
[78] As an alternative, perhaps the SBC's could put a motion to a future meeting of the PBC proposing that prior to the PBC submitting a motion to engage or vary the engagement of a service contractor, that the PBC afford sufficient time for each subsidiary scheme to hold an EGM to conduct a secret ballot to give a direction to the respective subsidiary scheme representative on how to vote.
[79] Alternatively, where a PBC proposes to decide a matter by secret ballot, a SBC could lodge an adjudication application seeking permission from an adjudicator to hold a GM to conduct a secret ballot to give a direction to the respective subsidiary scheme representative with less than 21 days notice. In this regard, see the following: