477. The strata manager puts their own motions on our agenda
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Reena Van Aalst joins me this week, as we cover:
- Managers proposing their own reappointment at the AGM – can they?
- A creative (but unlawful) by-law trying to control who gets on the committee
- The NSW District Court case giving clarity for owners who are seeking damages from their owners corporation
and more.
Links Mentioned:
- Get the transcript here!
- Section 122 – Power of owners corporation to enter property in order to carry out work – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
- Section 124 – Orders by Tribunal relating to entry to carry out work or inspections – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
- John Goubran & Associates Pty Ltd ACN 070 974 819 v The Owners of Strata Plan Number 57150 [2026] NSWDC 9 (25 February 2026) Case
- Section 106 (5) – Duty of owners corporation to maintain and repair property – Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
I do not subscribe to the idea the manager can include motions with the instruction of the SC or even if they have some delegated duties; let’s not get grey here. If the agent can’t find an eligible person to “requisition” the motion the agent wants on the agenda then the item probably shouldn’t be on the agenda.
The retrospectivity of the 6year law that came into effect on 1/7/2025 makes more sense as any retrospective claim going back up to 6 years would only be for actual damage or lack of repair to damaged property, that the owner would have been effected by, so any claims would be real and genuine, whereas there is actually an anomaly in the new 6 year law as it actually doesn’t come into effect until 1/7/2027, because, if the old 2 year law hadn’t been amended at all, an owner would still have 2 years until 1/7/2027 to lodge a claim, making the 6 year law redundant until 1/7/2027 & legislation should not contain anomalies, therefore, it’s like the chicken and the egg conundrum as the answer is that the chicken came first because the chicken is an actual chicken whereas the egg is a potential chicken. in this case the retrospective argument is the chicken because for the 6 years prior to 1/7/2025 there was actual quantifiable damage or negligence, whereas, the 6 year law only going forward, it is actually the egg as the first 2 years of the new law are redundant due to the existence already of the 2 year law making it the chicken in this case, therefore, making the 6 year law only actually effective for 4 years in it’s initial period, which surely must be called an anomaly. if a person spends 2 years in jail in remand, then the court passes an 18 year jail sentence, does the person stay in jail for 18 years from that date, or is the 18 years retrospective back 2 years. I think we all know the answer as to make the sentence only effective forward would create an anomaly…I rest my case.
Is the new law a true 6 year law or is it a 4 year law that has not been worded accurately in legislation, or alternatively, is it the first law passed into legislation containing a known anomaly…!!.