Mr Butt commenced ACAT proceedings against the owners corporation requesting that ACAT set aside a resolution made by the owners corporation approving a specified sinking fund contribution on the grounds that the resolution was not in compliance with the requirements of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (ACT).
Mr Butt first argued that there was no quorum at the meeting (because proxies should not be counted for the purposes of a quorum) and therefore the meeting should have proceeded as a reduced quorum meeting. This would mean that the requirements of sections 3.10 and 3.11 of Schedule 3 of the UTMA would need to have been met (and it was agreed that they had not been). A failure to meet those requirements would mean that the decision made with a reduced quorum had no effect.
The question was, in interpreting paragraph 3.9(1)(a) does one count the number of people present (i.e. ignoring ownership of more than one unit and proxies), or the number of entitlements to vote that are physically present (i.e. multiple ownership counts, but proxies do not), or the number of entitlements to vote that are held by people that are present (i.e. including proxies)?
ACAT held that the latter approach was correct, that proxies may count towards the quorum. Consequently, there was a quorum at the general meeting and the owners corporation could proceed as it did.