Bower Lodge [2004] QBCCMCmr 20 (12 January 2004)

Number of Scheme:	17921
Name of Scheme:	Bower Lodge
Address of Scheme:	53 - 55 Bauer Street, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by Ms Donna Turcic, the Owner(s) of lot 22

I hereby order that the committee meeting of 6 October 2003 was invalid because no adequate notice was given according to section 28 of the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0780-2003

"Bower Lodge" CTS 17921

Bower Lodge Community Titles Scheme (Bower Lodge) is a 27 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module). The scheme is designed for residential purposes.

This application is by Donna Turcic (applicant) seeking orders to invalidate a committee meeting of the body corporate (respondent). The applicant claims that the meeting should be invalid because no proper notice of the committee meeting was given.

On 6 October 2003, a committee meeting for Bower Lodge was held at the offices of the body corporate manger. Shortly before the commencement of the meeting, the applicant faxed and telephoned the body corporate manager and told him that she had been given insufficient notice of the meeting and was unable to attend. The applicant requested that the meeting be held on another occasion after proper notice.

All other members of the committee, except the applicant, were present at the meeting. Despite the absence of the applicant, all members agreed that the meeting had been properly convened and should continue. The applicant has brought this application claiming that the meeting was not properly convened and should be invalidated.

The applicant’s main submissions were to the effect that there was no proper notice of the meeting and she was unable to attend at short notice.

The body corporate manager has submitted that the meeting was originally intended to be held on 29 September 2003 and proper notice was given for this meeting. The meeting was rescheduled. However, the body corporate manager submits that the rescheduled meeting should not be invalidated for lack of formal notice as there was enough informal communication between the committee members confirming when and where the rescheduled meeting was to be held. All committee members except the applicant were present and voted to continue with the meeting.

One committee member has submitted that the applicant is raising unnecessary concerns and committee members should be able to communicate verbally to arrange meetings. Another committee member claims that even though she voted for the meeting to continue she has now had time to consider the requirements under the Act for notification of meetings and considers the notice given to be unacceptable and unprofessional.

Two owners have also provided submissions. Both these submissions state that the notice given was unacceptable and the meeting should be invalidated.

Since the meeting on 6 October 2003 there have been some legislative changes to committee meeting procedures. These include a provision allowing owners to attend committee meetings and a provision that allows notice for meetings to be reduced from seven to only two days if all committee members agree (Standard Module 32B, 28). However, the legislation at the time of the committee meeting required:

The body corporate manager provided a number of reasons why 7 days’ written notice was not given. These included a rescheduling of the meeting and subsequent uncertainty about the venue for the meeting. The body corporate manager said that all committee members had adequate warning of the date of the meeting. In addition, even though the venue was only decided upon the day before, the body corporate manager says that there were a number of discussions about the venue between committee members and there was sufficient notice of the venue to all committee members.

Technically, the notice given for the meeting was inadequate to comply with the Act (Standard Module, 28). The important question is, however, whether this failure to comply with the notice requirements justifies the entire meeting being invalidated.

On balance, I am satisfied that the meeting should be invalidated. I accept the statement of the applicant that she was given less than 24 hours’ notice of the venue for the meeting and that she was unable to arrange to get to the meeting on such short notice. In effect, the applicant was excluded from attending the meeting due to the late notice. The applicant did not voluntarily choose not to attend the meeting. She contacted the body corporate manager at the commencement of the meeting to state that she was unable to attend and request that the meeting be rescheduled with proper notice. In these circumstances, it was not proper for the committee meeting to proceed without her.

Further, there is no strong evidence that the body corporate would be greatly prejudiced if another committee meeting needed to be called to cover the same matters that were considered at the meeting of 6 October 2003. I am therefore prepared to invalidate the entire committee meeting of 6 October 2003.

Because the committee meeting of 6 October 2003 was invalid, the minutes of that meeting are of no effect.

The body corporate committee may wish to reconsider the matters in the 6 October 2003 in a committee meeting held after proper notice has been given. Any decisions made at this subsequent meeting should be properly minuted.

The applicant sought interim orders to place decisions made at the purported meeting of 6 October 2003 on hold and prevent the committee accepting the minutes from that meeting. She also sought final orders to invalidate the meeting.

Submissions were sought from all owners and, after consideration of these submissions, it seems appropriate to grant the final relief sought. This avoids the need to grant interim relief to place the committee decisions on hold for a significant period and then to reconsider the issues at a later date.

For these reasons, I make the order above.

•	Giving all committee members at least 7 days written notice of when and where a committee meeting is to be held and providing an agenda for the meeting (Standard Module, 28(1) and 28(3)).
•	Giving all lot owners 24 hours notice of the meeting, except for lot owners who have requested not to receive this notice (Standard Module, 28(3)(d));
•	Placing a notice of the meeting on the body corporate notice board at least 24 hours before the meeting is to be held, if the body corporate maintains a notice board (Standard Module, 28(3)(c));

Queensland Body Corporate and Community Management Commissioner - Adjudicators Orders

Bower Lodge [2004] QBCCMCmr 20 (12 January 2004)