Dumping your Body Corporate Secretary


There are quite a lot of apartment complexes where the body corporate secretary has proven ridiculously difficult to get rid of.  In some cases, the developer has put in its own management company and entrenched itself in the rules.  In others, a company has paid the developer money to become the secretary and has provided its own set of written rules that can likewise make it difficult to remove.

For example, they might write into the rules that they have a five or ten or twenty year renewable management term.  They might write in that they control votes from management units and separate principal units used by the body corporate of a hotel for common purposes such as laundry, restaurant, office, reception desk, loading areas, storage and the like.  There is the principle that owners in default on BC fees cannot vote…so if owners refuse to pay levies to a secretary they are in dispute with, they can inadvertently prevent themselves from achieving a valid removal.  Sometimes you will find BC Rules written so that any owner that doesn’t attend a meeting – such as an overseas owner – automatically gives a proxy in favour of the secretary to be voted as they choose.

What can an owner do?  Well, these days more and more…but you need to be careful and will usually need professional advice.

Owners in the  278-unit Imperial Gardens’ building in central Auckland had to go all the way to the High Court to stop Strata Title Administration voting proxy shares sufficient to keep itself in place as secretary no matter how much the rest of the owners wanted to get rid of it due to unhappiness with the company’s performance and fees.

As reported at Stuff.co.nz:

The vote, at a reconvened annual general meeting (AGM), went ahead after a breakaway owners’ committee sought a high court injunction to uphold an extraordinary vote to remove the company.

The owners’ committee alleged Strata wrote its body corporate rules “solely to protect Strata’s interest” and that it withheld from unit owners interest earned on Imperial Gardens’ bank accounts.

The body corporate also failed to manage the building properly, the owners said, pointing to a recurring roof leak, apartment overcrowding and a faulty fire alarm system.

However the first vote to get rid of Strata was defeated by Strata voting in its own interests.  In the High Court:

Judge Graham Lang ruled another vote to decide the fate of Strata Title should go ahead with all previous proxy votes – the majority held by Strata Title – voided and an independent chair to oversee the meeting.

The new vote unsurprisingly removed Strata forthwith, with orders that all records and funds were to be handed over to the owners association lawyers.

This is not the first time that Strata Title Administration have been involved in High Court action against apartment owners to remove it, and the article references some of them, including:

In 2003 Strata was ordered to pay $50,000 to a body corporate which a judge found had been illegally held by Strata after it refused to step down as body corporate.

Another city apartment building, Dynasty Gardens, removed Strata as its body corporate earlier this year.

Not a great track record…..but in defence of BC secretaries it can be a thankless task where you are incapable of pleasing everyone….and if you displease litigious people then you can find yourself in court despite having done what you thought was your best.

Strata do seem, however, to have involved themselves in a number of High Court actions.  If you’re interested, here are links to pdf’s of a few:

jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/GetJudgment/?judgmentID=156236

jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/GetJudgment/?judgmentID=171380

Tuscany Towers summary

Strata also seem to have spawned a blog entirely devoted to their activities from someone who appears not to be a fan.  We have no position on the views expressed there.

Whatever the facts may be, in this present matter, as with Lighter Quay down on the Auckland Waterfront (although that particular battle continued long after the leases were avoided – see the latest Herald update on the matter, worth an article in itself), the courts have shown themselves willing to intervene to rescue owners.   If you are trapped in a body corporate relationship that seems rather one sided, there is now enough precedent in case law to give managers or secretaries obtaining one-sided benefit considerable pause and put them on the back foot in negotiations.

Advertisements

About Ivan McIntosh

I am a partner of Carter Atmore Law...residing in City Road just off the busy thoroughfare of Symonds Street, Auckland, New Zealand....where we are specialist business & property development lawyers, working for both local and international clients. Proud husband to Joanna, and dad to two sons. Passionate rugby supporter. Email: imcintosh@calaw.co.nz Ph: 64 9 921 5026
This entry was posted in Property Law, Residential property, Subdivisions, Unit Titles and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Dumping your Body Corporate Secretary

  1. Bill says:

    Excellent blog entry, our complex has found all the above to be true. We have been embroiled in legal fees and lawyers with Strata for years regarding one units unpaid levies – while the said owner has tried to work it out with Strata and it could have all been avoided, plus they cost an additional $10500/year over competing companies for hopeless service.

  2. law says:

    It’s nearly impossible to find knowledgeable people for this topic, but you sound like
    you know what you’re talking about!Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s