Aison-de-Plume Villas [2005] QBCCMCmr 518 (19 September 2005)

Last Updated: 19 July 2006

REFERENCE: 0663-2005

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	9693
Name of Scheme:	Aison-de-Plume Villas
Address of Scheme:	13 Muchow Street

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by

Colin Buchanan, the Owner(s) of lot 11

I hereby declare that any annual general meeting of the body corporate held within two months of this order will not be invalid simply because it was held more than three months after the end of financial year of the body corporate.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0663-2005

"Aison-de-Plume Villas" CTS 9693

Application

Aison-de-Plume Villas Community Titles Scheme (Aison-de-Plume) is a 14 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module).

Colin Buchanan, owner of lot 11, (applicant) has brought this application. He makes submissions to the effect that he is the chairperson elected at the last annual general meeting but that he failed to call the next annual general meeting within three months of the end of financial year as required by the legislation. He says that ill health and the retirement of their body corporate manager contributed to this.

Decision

Obviously, it is preferable that annual general meetings be held within three months of the end of financial year as required by the legislation (Standard Module, 60). However, the courts have recognised that the very detailed provisions of the regulations make it almost inevitable that from time to time there will be non-compliance with the legislation. Non-compliance of an insubstantial nature should not be allowed to imperil the actions of bodies corporate or their committees, particularly in the instance of committees where actions are taken in good faith.^[1]

The application merely seeks a declaratory order and does not list any persons as being affected by the outcome. If any person will suffer significant prejudice as a result of the applicant being given authority to call the meeting late then that person should be given an opportunity to make submissions to that effect or to bring an application seeking relief. I am not prepared to make an order stating that the meeting will definitely be valid without some opportunity for these submissions. However, it seems to me that the most recently elected committee members should call the meeting as soon as possible and if no objections are substantiated then the meeting should ultimately be considered valid. The chairperson has indicated that it will be possible to call and hold a meeting within two months. In this respect, I am willing to grant a declaration to the effect that the lateness of the meeting, in itself, does not mean that the meeting is invalid.

Order

For these reasons, I make the order above.

^[1] Wei-Xin Chen v Body Corporate for Wishart Village CTS 19482, Appeal 4080 of 2000, District Court Brisbane, 29 May 2001.