Tribunal gives effect to a defeated motion after finding opposition to rule changes unreasonable (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant owns a unit in a strata complex in the ACT, registered as Units Plan No 355. He drafted a motion proposing ten amendments to the rules of the complex. He wanted each amendment put to the annual general meeting separately, but the executive committee chose to put them all as a single motion, which became item 22 on the agenda for the meeting held on 12 March 2025. A second, follow-on motion (item 23) would have rescinded the old registered rules and authorised the committee to register a consolidated set.

The proposed changes were mostly drafting and presentation: clearer headings, consistent wording, references lined up with the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011, and extra examples. Some changes went further. A new sub-rule would have stopped an owner who owed money to the owners corporation from voting at a general meeting or standing for the executive committee until the debt was paid. Another new sub-rule would have banned charging electric vehicles from common property power points in the garage or by running a cable out of a window. Rule 2.5, about who pays for maintenance of the Class B units, was redrafted.

At the meeting, 15 owners voted for the motion and 14 against, with one abstention. The rules required a special resolution, which only passes if the votes against are fewer than a quarter of the votes that could have been cast. Because 14 owners voted against, the motion failed. Item 23 was never put, because it depended on item 22 passing.

The applicant applied to the tribunal on 20 August 2025. Nine of the owners who had opposed the motion filed a joint written submission, and one of them filed a further submission of her own, but none of them asked to be joined as parties and none appeared at the hearing on 3 December 2025. Their written submissions were treated as the owners corporation's case. All of the opposition was about the one rule dealing with maintenance of the Class B units. In this complex, Class A units are in a block of flats and Class B units are separate dwellings, and the Act treats them differently: the owners corporation must maintain the common property and defined parts of a Class A building, but can only pay for maintenance of Class B units if a special resolution authorises it.

What each side wanted

The applicant asked the tribunal to make an order giving effect to the defeated motion, either as it was put or in a similar form. He said the changes were a tidy-up: fixing language, removing ambiguity, aligning the rules with the legislation, and writing in changes that earlier annual general meetings had already resolved. He said he was not trying to make substantive changes. The owners who opposed the motion argued that the redraft of the maintenance rule would reduce the amount of levy money that could be spent on Class B units, that there was nothing unlawful about the existing wording, and that a validly taken vote should not be disturbed. One of them also argued that "unreasonable" in the Act should be given the strict meaning used when courts review government decisions, that a merits review was impossible because Class A and Class B owners had opposed interests, and that the application was a bad faith attempt to get around a lawful vote.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal ordered that the motion put as item 22 at the annual general meeting of 12 March 2025 is given effect, as amended by the decision. It also ordered that from the date of the decision, the rules of the units plan are those set out in the attachment to the decision. The orders were made on 15 May 2026.

No money was claimed or ordered. The practical effect is that the redrafted rules, including the new voting restriction for owners in arrears and the new restrictions on charging electric vehicles from common property, replaced the old rules for the whole complex.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Section 129(1)(g) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 lets the tribunal make an order giving effect to an unsuccessful motion at a general meeting, either as proposed or as amended by the tribunal, if the tribunal is satisfied after a merits review of the motion that opposition to the motion was unreasonable. The tribunal described this as up to four steps: review the motion on its merits; decide whether the opposition was unreasonable; if it was, decide whether to give the motion effect; and if so, decide whether to give it effect as put or with changes. If the opposition was reasonable, the later steps fall away.

A "merits review" means the tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision maker and makes a fresh decision on all the evidence, looking for the correct or preferable outcome, rather than only asking whether the original decision was lawful. Because the Act asks whether the opposition "was" unreasonable, the tribunal looked at the evidence that was available when the vote was taken. The tribunal rejected the argument that "unreasonable" carries the strict meaning used in court review of government decisions. That strict test exists because courts keep out of the work of the executive branch of government, and the tribunal said those separation of powers concerns had nothing to do with a tribunal reviewing a decision of an owners corporation. The ordinary dictionary meaning applied, judged objectively. The tribunal also drew on the High Court's observation in Ainsworth v Albrecht that opposition to a proposal that could not, on any rational view, adversely affect an opponent's enjoyment of their property rights may be unreasonable, as may opposition prompted by spite, ill will or a desire for attention.

On the merits, the tribunal worked through the rules one by one and found the amendments improved the drafting, presentation and clarity, and lined the rules up better with the Act. The two substantial changes, on unpaid levies and on electric vehicle charging, had drawn no objection at the meeting and were reasonable in the circumstances. On the maintenance rule that caused the fight, the tribunal found the old and new versions had the same effect: the opening sentence of the new rule simply stated what section 24(1) of the Act already does, which is that the owners corporation only maintains Class B units where a special resolution authorises it, and special resolutions already authorised each listed item. The change from paying out of the sinking fund to the owners corporation paying was, in the tribunal's view, a better match for the Act, with no practical difference, because the owners corporation has nowhere else to draw the money from. The tribunal flagged one point that might need clarifying, namely whether the voting restriction bites from the due date or only after the 45 day grace period ends.

The tribunal found no objective detriment to any owner, Class A or Class B, in any of the amendments. The objections rested on the history of arguments within the owners corporation and on views about the applicant's motives, including a statement that he had been warned any change to that rule would be "interpreted" as cutting Class B access to the sinking fund regardless of its actual wording. The tribunal described those as subjective reasons and found no evidence of bad faith by the applicant. It also rejected the argument that opposing interests make a merits review impossible, pointing out that parties in merits review normally have opposing interests. The published text available here stops partway through the tribunal's discussion of the joint submission, so the last part of the reasoning is not set out in full.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as an owner in a strata or unit titles scheme, this decision shows how a tribunal looks at a motion that was voted down. A special resolution can fail even when more owners vote for it than against it, because the test is about the proportion of votes against, not a simple majority. Where that happens, the ACT legislation gives an owner a path to ask the tribunal to review the defeated motion on its merits and, if the opposition is found to be unreasonable, to give the motion effect anyway, with changes if needed.

The decision also shows what carries weight in that review. The tribunal looked for an objective disadvantage to the owners who voted against the motion, in their own lot or in the common property. Worry about what a change might be taken to mean, long-running friction with the owner who proposed it, or views about that owner's motives were not enough once the tribunal compared the old and new wording and found the practical effect was the same. Equally, the tribunal did not simply rubber stamp the motion; it read every proposed rule, looked at the relevant sections of the Act, and noted a drafting point that could still cause confusion.

In disputes of this kind, most people start by putting their concern or proposal to the strata committee, body corporate or owners corporation in writing, setting out what they want changed and why, before any tribunal application. A written complaint or request creates a record of what was asked, what was answered and when, which is what a tribunal later reads.

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

Source: DUNCAN v THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN NO 355 (Unit Titles) [2026] ACAT 25 [2026] ACAT 25 (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.