News
RESOLVING GENERAL MEETING DISPUTES THROUGH CONCILIATION
January 16, 2025
History shows most disputes within community title schemes arise from a lack of communication or knowledge of body corporate legislation.
However, they can be resolved by both parties talking through their issues and gaining a better understanding of body corporate legislation and how it relates to their dispute.
While conciliation is an avenue to resolving disputes, it can also be a valuable opportunity to inform and educate parties about their roles and responsibilities under the legislation.
Disputes about general meeting outcomes are often resolved through adjudication, although conciliation can also be an option.
The key vision of the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management (BCCM) is to inform, educate and resolve, and with conciliation issues can be resolved quicker and parties provided with effective outcomes.
What does dispute resolution look like?
Dispute resolution through our office is outcome based.
This means an applicant cannot apply for conciliation or adjudication with an outcome that simply says, “I want the issue fixed”.
The applicant must state the action that will resolve the problem.
The applicant must also provide evidence that they have attempted to resolve their issue and requested an outcome (self-resolution) from the respondent before lodging an application.
This usually includes submitting a motion asking for their specific outcome and providing the minutes showing the outcome of the motion as evidence.
A dispute follows the below process:
- An issue (dispute) occurs between two parties within the body corporate. Section 228 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) establishes the types of disputes our office can deal with
- The parties are unable to resolve the dispute themselves.
- An application is lodged with us.
- The application is assessed and, if considered appropriate for conciliation and within our jurisdiction, referred to a conciliator.
- The conciliator works with the parties to discuss the issues and inform them about the relevant legislation. If the parties agree on a resolution, the conciliator drafts them an agreement to sign.
- If the agreement does not resolve the dispute, the applicant may then lodge an adjudication application.
- An adjudication application is assessed and, if within our jurisdiction, referred to an adjudicator to make an order.
Before submitting a dispute resolution application, it is important to consider the outcomes you are seeking and what action you want the committee or body corporate to take.
Disputes about general meeting outcomes
Disputes about motions considered at general meetings are one of the top five issues disputed in our office.
Applicants claim there has been a mistake with the process that has affected the outcome, or a breach of the legislation has occurred due to the motion passing or not passing.
Regardless of the reason, applicants need to try and resolve the issue with the body corporate before lodging a dispute application.
If conciliation is deemed appropriate, both parties need to come to the session prepared to discuss the issue.
They can offer solutions and make decisions that may resolve the dispute.
The committee is restricted in making some decisions on behalf of the body corporate, so that needs to be considered when determining the appropriateness of the application for conciliation.
Committee members who attend need to be authorised by the committee to make decisions. Section 252G of the Act allows the committee members representing the body corporate to make decisions on behalf of the body corporate in conciliation.
Refer to our webpage, Committee’s role, for further information on restricted issues.
Disputing motions that pass at a general meeting
Applications lodged about a motion passed at a general meeting where an applicant believes the outcome would be unlawful, unenforceable, or not reasonable are lodged as adjudication applications.
In these instances, the committee representatives are unable to override a general meeting decision in the conciliation session.
However, the committee could agree to call and hold a new general meeting.
At this general meeting, the body corporate can vote to amend or revoke a previous decision, as well as consider new motions.
If conciliation would be the preferred option to try and resolve the dispute, the applicant would need to demonstrate they have asked for a general meeting to be called but their request was refused.
The applicant also needs to explain how the refusal to call a general meeting breaches the Act.
Disputing motions that pass at a general meeting for smaller bodies corporate
Applying for conciliation to resolve disputes about passed motions at a general meeting can work well for smaller bodies corporate, for example, six lots or less.
Section 252E of the Act allows a conciliator to choose who attends the conciliation. Depending on the size of the scheme, a conciliator can choose to invite all members of the body corporate to attend the conciliation session if their participation would help resolve the dispute.
As explained previously, the committee cannot change or overturn general meeting decisions.
Usually, a new general meeting is required to be called where the committee may call for the motion to be reconsidered.
If the committee refuses to call another general meeting, this may be one of the outcomes sought in the conciliation application.
The applicant also needs to explain how the refusal to call a general meeting breaches the Act.
If a general meeting is called and held, the body corporate can vote to amend or revoke a previous decision, as well as consider new motions.
Even though overturning a general meeting decision is not something a committee can do, the decision to call a general meeting is within the scope of their functions.
Therefore, conciliation is a viable option to help parties agree on their next steps.
Disputing motions that fail at a general meeting
A motion that fails at a general meeting is different. Unlike passed motions, where in most cases adjudication is the most appropriate course of action, conciliation can be useful for resolving these types of disputes.
If a motion at a general meeting fails, and it’s not a restricted issue, the committee can decide on the motion at a committee meeting.
When the body corporate is a party to a dispute being conciliated, the voting committee members, authorised by the committee to represent them, can make decisions.
During the conciliation session, the committee representatives can make decisions about failed general meeting motions if they aren’t restricted issues for the committee.
Additionally, if a restricted issue is being discussed, the committee representatives can agree in the conciliation session to calling another general meeting to vote on a matter.
For example, in some instances the body corporate by-laws may state that owners and occupiers need approval to keep a pet on scheme land.
If the by-law allows the committee to grant pet approval, but the decision failed at a general meeting, the committee could still give approval.
If the pet owner believes the body corporate acted unreasonably in declining the pet request, the owner could dispute the body corporate’s decision.
Section 169B of the Act outlines the possible reasons for denying a pet.
Despite this being a general meeting decision that failed, as the by-law allows the committee to make the decision, the dispute could still go through conciliation.
However, if the by-law does not allow the committee to approve the pet application, the dispute would usually have to go through adjudication.
A motion passed at a general meeting is a lawful decision of the body corporate and the committee is required to act on such decisions.
If the committee does not act on a decision and internal written requests from lot owners do not prompt action, conciliation could be an effective method to remind the parties of their obligations to implement the lawful decisions of the body corporate (section 101 of the Act).
Consent orders
Conciliation agreements are goodwill agreements between the parties and sometimes are decisions of the committee (when representatives are given authority).
In some circumstances. parties in agreement with each other can apply to an adjudicator for a consent order.
Not every dispute resolved through conciliation can, or will, result in a consent order. It is important to note that consent orders made by an adjudicator cannot be appealed.
If a consent order is not complied with, it may be enforced in the Magistrates Court.
A consent order requires both parties to accept the agreed outcome of a conciliation session and the outcome must be supported by legislation.
After the session, the conciliator drafts an agreement to be signed by both parties.
Within 30 days of the agreement being signed, the body corporate must give the conciliator notice that the committee has ratified the agreement, a copy has been given to each lot owner and that no notice of opposition has been received.
The minutes of the committee’s decision to ratify the agreement must be included in the notice.
Once this information has been provided to the conciliator, it is referred to an adjudicator to assess.
If the adjudicator is satisfied that the consent order only includes matters concerning the Act – and does not include matters that are inconsistent with it or another Act – a consent order can be made.
Choosing the right method of dispute resolution is not always straightforward and, in some situations, it may be appropriate for conciliation instead of adjudication.
If you are unsure of your options call our Information and Community Education Unit on 1800 060 119 or write to us at www.qld.gov.au/bodycorporate.
Article contributed by the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management
The post RESOLVING GENERAL MEETING DISPUTES THROUGH CONCILIATION appeared first on Smart Strata | Body Corporate Management.