You are here:
AustLII >>
Databases >>
Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators Orders >>
2000 >>
[2000] QBCCMCmr 665
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Download]
[Help]
Talbot Manor [2000] QBCCMCmr 665 (19 December 2000)
P G DanielsREFERENCE: 0711-2000
INTERIM ORDER OF AN
ADJUDICATOR
MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6
BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT
1997
|
Number of Scheme:
|
8610
|
|
Name of Scheme:
|
Talbot Manor
|
|
Address of Scheme:
|
18-22 Albert Street EAGLEBY QLD 4207
|
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the
abovementioned Act by
Albert John Harlen a co-owner of lot 10
P G
DanielsI hereby order that a notice calling an extraordinary general meeting
of the Body Corporate for Talbot Manor community titles scheme 8610 which
meeting
is to be held on 21 December 2000 (the meeting) is void and of no
effect.
I further order that the Body Corporate for Talbot Manor
community titles scheme 8610 must not hold the
meeting.1n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION -
REF 0711-2000
“Talbot Manor” CMS
8610
The applicant, Albert John Harlen, a co-owner of lot 10, has sought the
following interim and final order of an adjudicator under
the Body Corporate and
Community Management Act 1997 (the Act):
An injunction to stop the extraordinary general meeting (refer items 1 and 2
attached) called by Calabro Partners acting as receivers
for Complete Body
Corporate Management P/L at PO Box 7095, Riverside Centre Brisbane, Ph: 32298733
Fax: 32291227, for “Talbot
Manor Body Corporate” on 21/12/00 at
10.00 am.
Section 225(1) provides that an adjudicator may
make an interim order if satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that an interim order
is
necessary because of the nature or urgency of the circumstances to which the
application relates. An adjudicator’s order may
contain ancillary or
consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate
(section 230(1)).
A notice of an extraordinary general meeting has been
issued for the Body Corporate for Talbot Manor community titles scheme 8610
with
the meeting date being 21 December 2000 (the meeting).
The applicant
seeks an injunction to restrain the holding the meeting. The background is as
follows.
Bradley Hellen and Richard Edwards of Calabro Partners have been
appointed as receivers and managers to the scheme’s current
body corporate
manager and a number of other associated companies.
Bradley Hellen of
Calabro Partners has forwarded a letter to lot owners enclosing the notice of
the meeting. The agenda and voting
papers provide for the engagement of a new
body corporate manager.
The applicant indicates that Talbot Manor wants
to move to self-management.
I have examined the notice of the meeting and
the letter enclosing the notice. I have noted the following contraventions of
the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation
1997 (the Regulation):
| 1. | Motions are to be submitted
to a general meeting by the Committee or a lot owner: section 41, 42(3)(c) and
45(2); |
| 2. | The Committee must prepare
the agenda for the meeting: section 45(1); |
| 3. | The Secretary must call the
meeting: section 40(a) unless paragraph (b) or (c)
applies; |
| 4. | A general meeting must be
held not more than 15 km from scheme land: section 44 (sub-section (2) does not
apply to this matter); |
| 5. | Two individuals must be
personally present at the meeting to establish a quorum: section 48(2)(a). In
this case owners have been
advised not to personally attend the
meeting; |
| 6. | A voter is entitled to vote
on a motion personally: section 51(1) and
52(2); |
| 7. | Written voting papers are
required to be given to the Secretary before the start of the meeting or to the
chairperson at the meeting:
section 51(2) and
52(2); |
| 8. | A chairperson must chair a
general meeting: section 46(1) unless subsection (2)
applies. |
Additionally, Mr Hellen has encouraged
owners to nominate himself as their proxy. Section 75(2) prohibits an associate
of a body
corporate manager from exercising a proxy. Associate is defined by
section 256 of the Act. Additionally, section 75(4) prohibits
a person
exercising a proxy if an associate stands to gain a financial benefit from
making an engagement as a body corporate manager.
An associate can be a person
mentioned in section 75(5). Even if sections 75(2), (4) and (5) did not apply,
section 72(4)(b) would
apply and prevent a person from holding more than one
proxy. Additionally, section 72(5) provides that a completed proxy form is
to
be given to the Secretary.
I would not make the order sought due to any
irregularities with proxies. I am uncertain if Mr Bradley has been appointed as
anyone’s
proxy. Additionally, it is not possible to determine what effect
the proxy votes would have as the meeting has not been held.
The
applicant has suggested that section 84 of the Regulation applies to this
situation. Section 84 regulates the transfer of engagements.
It has no
application to this matter as the agenda and voting papers for the meeting
provide for the engagement of a new body corporate
manager. The applicant
indicates he received the notice of the meeting 17 days prior to the date it is
to be held. I have considered
whether this constitutes a contravention of
section 43 of the Regulation which requires 21 days notice. In the absence of
evidence
from other owners about when they received their notices I am unwilling
to make such a finding.
However, I am satisfied that the meeting should
not occur due to the various contraventions of the Regulation that have occurred
as
detailed above. I will order that the notice calling the meeting is void and
that the Body Corporate must not hold the meeting.
The applicant has
asked how the engagement of a body corporate manager can take effect from 18
December 2000 (as stated in the voting
papers) when the meeting is to take place
on 21 December 2000. It is not necessary for me to determine that matter given
the orders
I am making.
In the circumstances, it is not intended to
invite further submissions regarding this matter, or to make a further order,
since this
decision, though an interim one as sought by the applicant, is final
in its determination of this matter. If it is considered that
an appeal of this
decision is warranted, then the appeal can be against the interim order.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2000/665.html