Part 28 published on 01/11/09
No oppression. Procedural irregularities generally did not merit Court intervention
One of the owners (the Applicant, Azura) alleged that the strata corporation and two of its Council members had acted unfairly. Azura also alleged that the strata corporation had contravened the Strata Property Act in various respects. Azura applied for various relief, including:
- Declarations of unfair conduct;
- Declarations of various contraventions of the Strata Property Act;
- Appointment of an administrator;
- Injunctions to prevent certain business from being transacted by the corporation;
- Rescission of certain decisions already made by the strata corporation;
- Disclosure of legal opinions received by the strata corporation from its solicitor.
In large part, the Application was dismissed. The Court found that there had been no oppressive conduct. The Court declined to appoint an administrator. The Court also found that most of Azura’s complaints related to procedural irregularities which could be easily rectified and did not result in any serious prejudice to any strata lot owner. Some of the Court’s specific orders were as follows:
The claims against the two Council members were dismissed because there was no evidence of any personal wrongdoing by those Council members. The steps in question were taken by the Council as a whole and not by those members personally.
There is nothing in the Strata Property Act which requires that meetings be held in person. Meetings by telephone or by email are permissible.
Section 36(3) of the Strata Property Act requires a corporation to comply with a request for copies within one week of the request. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable for minutes from a meeting of Council to be available within seven days. Section 41(1) of the Strata Property Act states that a corporation must give at least two weeks written notice of an annual or special general meeting. Therefore, it is also not unreasonable for the minutes from the Council meeting (which decided an agenda for a meeting of owners) to be available prior to the two weeks written notice of an annual or special general meeting.
Although some errors were made in relation to the financial statements, the requirements of the Strata Property Act were met.
Azura was not entitled to see legal opinions that were subject to solicitor/client privilege (ie, relating to litigation or potential litigation with Azura). Azura was entitled to disclosure of legal opinion letters relating to another owner or the developer. However, Azura and its legal counsel could not share the legal opinions with any other person, whether or not that person is a member of the corporation.
The Court noted certain voting errors, but concluded that those errors did not have any impact upon the decisions taken (at the 2008 AGM).