Paddington Row [2009] QBCCMCmr 26 (30 January 2009)

Last Updated: 19 February 2009

REFERENCE: 0072-2009

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	20895
Name of Scheme:	Paddington Row
Address of Scheme:	Cnr Plunkett & Horsfall Streets PADDINGTON QLD 4064

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

the body corporate

I hereby declare that the proposed annual general meeting of the body corporate on 12 February 2009 will not be invalid simply because it is held approximately two weeks outside of the required time frame.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0072-2009

“Paddington Row” CTS 20895

Application

Paddington Row Community Titles Scheme (Paddington Row) is a 6 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module).

The body corporate has brought this application. It is submitted that the body corporate has rescheduled its annual general meeting from 22 January 2009 to 12 February 2009 to allow more owners to attend. However, the body corporate’s end of financial year date was 31 October 2008, meaning that the meeting should have been held by 31 January 2009. This application seeks an order authorising the late holding of the annual general meeting.

Decision

It is concerning that the body corporate has failed to hold its annual general meeting within 3 months after the end of the scheme’s financial year (Standard Module, 66).

However, I note that the time has effectively expired in which the body corporate could hold its meeting within time. Further, the body corporate is intending to hold its meeting within two weeks of the expiry of the three month period.

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] Also, in giving directions for the calling and holding of a meeting, an adjudicator is not limited to the time frames provided in the legislation.[2]

Particularly given that the body corporate has given owners more than 21 days’ notice of the meeting on 12 February, I am prepared to grant a declaration that the proposed annual general meeting will not be invalid simply because it is held outside of the required timeframe. However, owners will still have an opportunity to challenge the validity of the meeting for good reason.

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.
[2] Holloway, Wilson and Watts v Meek (unreported), Appeal 22/1998, District Court (Maroochydore), Dodds DCJ, 24 December 1998 at page 10.