Administrators appointed to rerun a committee election after invalid owners corporation votes (VCAT, 2026)

What happened

The building is a 287-lot apartment block on Victoria Street in Carlton. VCAT recorded that for about seven years the owners corporation had been caught up in disputes about who controlled and managed it, with large legal bills passed on to lot owners through increased fees, delayed maintenance and repair work, lost capital value and negative publicity. By late 2021 there were two rival committees claiming to be the valid one, and two businesses claiming to be the manager.

VCAT had already stepped in twice. The first time, two independent officers were appointed to run a general meeting; in May 2022 they withdrew, writing to VCAT that they were not comfortable with the information they had been given, that bank statements appeared to have been manually altered and that there were anomalies in the ledgers. The second time, in 2024, VCAT appointed an administrator with a long list of tasks, including reviewing four years of financial records, engaging an external auditor and convening an annual general meeting. That meeting was eventually held by Zoom on 25 July 2025 with the help of the manager, Above Owners Corporation Management Pty Ltd.

The notice for the 2025 annual general meeting gave five different explanations of how to vote, including repeated invitations to lodge a 'pre-vote' through online software if an owner could not attend. A group of owners calling themselves 'the proposed committee' then circulated their own unauthorised voting paper and emailed in completed forms for more than 100 lots. Those were rejected, with no written record of the decision, no notice to the affected owners and no mention at the meeting. At the meeting itself, owners struggled to use the Zoom chat to vote, and the chairperson told attendees to type the names of up to seven people they were voting for. Nothing was said about voting against a candidate, yet five of the 18 candidates ended up with negative vote totals, the lowest at minus 357.

In February 2026 the 'proposed committee' emailed owners calling their own special general meeting for 12 March 2026 under section 74(c) of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic), saying it was convened by five named people on behalf of 92 lot owners, and recommending owners pay their levies to the real estate agent that a 2022 VCAT injunction had barred from performing manager functions. That meeting purportedly elected a committee of seven.

What each side wanted

The applicant, Proequity Pty Ltd, is a lot owner and applied for an administrator to be appointed to convene an annual general meeting. Its primary position was that a valid committee could already be identified, either from the March 2026 special general meeting or by recounting the 2025 votes, because valid votes had wrongly been excluded; but if that was wrong, it supported appointing an administrator and nominated two people for the role. The owners corporation, represented by Tisher Liner FC Law on instructions from the manager, argued the opposite: that a valid committee had been elected at the 2025 annual general meeting and was named in the minutes, so no administrator was needed and the application should be dismissed. Two individual lot owners were joined as interested parties and made submissions, one focused on the voting procedure at the 2025 meeting and the other on proxy verification and how general meetings should be run.

What the tribunal decided

VCAT appointed two joint administrators, conditional on each of them confirming by email by 23 October 2026 that they had read the orders and reasons and accepted the appointment. Their powers and duties are limited to convening a special general meeting to elect a committee, following a detailed process set out in a schedule and annexures to the reasons. The special general meeting must be held by 31 January 2027, the administrators' report must be submitted no later than 14 days after that meeting, and their appointment ends when VCAT makes an order confirming the committee.

Total fees and disbursements of the administration are capped at $20,000 unless VCAT authorises more: professional fees of no more than $7,000 for one administrator at no more than $330 an hour including GST, no more than $7,000 for the other at no more than $450 an hour including GST, reasonable administrative support at no more than $165 an hour including GST, and reasonable disbursements including printing, postage, telephone and translation. The next annual general meeting must be completed by 30 June 2027.

Once VCAT confirms the elected committee, that committee may act by ordinary resolution to run a tender for a new manager, grant a successful tenderer a 12-month management contract (provided they are registered, have at least 12 months' recent experience managing tier 1 clients and have at least three current tier 1 clients), terminate Above Owners Corporation Management Pty Ltd on four weeks' written notice, convene the annual general meeting by 30 June 2027, represent the owners corporation in current VCAT proceedings and obtain legal advice, and seek further powers from VCAT. In the earlier proceeding, VCAT replaced an existing order so that the current manager stays on with limited functions only, including levying a special fee based on lot liability of no more than $3,000 per occupiable lot to pay existing liabilities, issuing fee notices, collecting outstanding fees, making routine urgent repair insurance claims, running the portal and business activity statements, and giving information to the administrators.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the 2025 annual general meeting, VCAT held that pre-voting is not a method of voting allowed by Victorian law. Section 80 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 gives three ways a lot owner may take part in a meeting: by teleconference in accordance with the regulations (regulation 7A of the Owners Corporations Regulations 2018 confirms videoconference counts), by proxy, or in another manner set out in the regulations. Section 89 speaks of voting 'at a meeting', and says a person taking part by teleconference is treated as present in person. Read together, VCAT said these provisions show Parliament intended a valid vote to be cast at the meeting. An owner who cannot attend can only effectively vote in advance by appointing a proxy under section 89C, directing how the proxy is to vote, and having the proxy attend. The notice said the opposite and encouraged pre-votes.

That irregularity on its own might not have invalidated the election, because it was not clear it changed the result. The decisive problem was the counting of negative votes. Five candidates finished with negative totals, which was only possible if votes against candidates were accepted, yet nobody had told owners that was allowed and the chairperson's instructions pointed the other way. VCAT called this more than an irregularity: it was a fundamental defect in the counting of votes, it gave an advantage to the owners who happened to know negative votes counted, and with only three votes separating the seventh-placed candidate who was elected from the eighth who was not, it was likely to have changed the result. A recount would also be unfair, because some owners had voted on the understanding that votes against were allowed. VCAT found the seven people named in the minutes were not validly elected, while making clear this was no criticism of them personally and there was no evidence any of them acted other than in good faith.

On the March 2026 meeting, VCAT applied section 74 of the Act strictly, citing a Supreme Court decision that the list of people who may convene a special general meeting is deliberately detailed, that convening a meeting is the initiating step towards a resolution, and that an unconstrained approach could lead to disorderly attempts to wrest control of an owners corporation. Under section 74(c) the meeting must be convened by a lot owner, that owner must be nominated by lot owners holding at least 25 per cent of lot entitlements, the nominations must be made directly by each owner and not by a proxy holder (the powers given to a proxy under section 89C do not include nominating someone to convene a meeting), the agenda must match the agenda approved when the nominations were made, and at least 14 days' written notice must go to each lot owner.

Because neither meeting produced a valid committee, VCAT decided a third attempt was needed and that it should be tightly controlled, with administrators appointed only to run the election and a detailed schedule setting out how it is to be done. VCAT noted that if this attempt also fails, the only workable option may be a long-term independent professional administrator, adding further cost and removing owners from control of their own asset. The published text supplied here stops partway through the discussion of the 2026 special general meeting, so the last part of that reasoning is not available.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are a lot owner in a similar position, this decision shows how closely VCAT will look at the mechanics of an owners corporation meeting. The method of voting matters: in Victoria, a vote has to be cast at the meeting, either by attending (including by video), or through a proxy who attends and votes as directed. An invitation to 'pre-vote' because you cannot attend does not create a valid vote, no matter what software or notice says.

It also shows that the rules for an election have to be explained before people vote, and then applied as explained. Where owners were told to name the people they were voting for, but votes against candidates were quietly counted, the tribunal treated that as a fundamental defect rather than a technicality, and set the election result aside instead of ordering a recount. The same strictness applies to calling a meeting yourself: the Act sets out exactly who may convene a special general meeting, what support they need, what the agenda must say and how much notice must be given, and a group acting outside those requirements does not produce a valid meeting.

In disputes about how an owners corporation is run, most people start by putting their concerns to the committee, the manager or the owners corporation in writing, setting out what happened and what they are asking for, and keeping a copy. If that does not resolve it, a tribunal application is the usual next stage, and a clear written record of what was raised and when is normally part of the material the tribunal is asked to consider.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a VCAT application. More decisions: VCAT cases and strata and body corporate.

Source: Proequity Pty Ltd v Owners Corporation [2026] VCAT 858 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.