top of page

Body Corporate Vote Tossed Out for Procedural Blunders

  • Writer: Staircase Financial
    Staircase Financial
  • Oct 21
  • 4 min read
body corporate dispute NZ

This dispute concerns a body corporate resolution authorizing tree removal that a unit owner challenged as procedurally flawed. The Tenancy Tribunal, interpreting provisions under the Unit Titles Act 2010, set aside the resolution, required a new extraordinary general meeting (EGM), and awarded the applicant $500 for the filing fee. The decision underscores that even corporate governance must adhere strictly to fair voting procedures.



Case overview 


The dispute involved Body Corporate 447921 at Fairview Park, Katikati. At the December 2024 AGM, a resolution to remove trees on common property was narrowly defeated (16 for, 17 against).


  • Applicant Claims:


The applicant, Mr. Sorokin, argued that the subsequent postal vote, which reversed the AGM result, was procedurally unfair and should be set aside. He sought Tribunal orders to invalidate the postal resolution and recover his filing costs.


  • Response:


The body corporate defended the postal vote as a lawful process under the Unit Titles Act 2010 and argued it provided fairness to all owners.


  • Tribunal Outcome


The Tribunal found the postal vote improper, set aside the resolution, ordered a new extraordinary general meeting (EGM) within 30 days, and directed the body corporate to reimburse $500 in filing fees to the applicant.


Tribunal findings


The Tribunal carefully assessed each claim, considering the AGM result, the postal vote process, and the Unit Titles Act. Its findings were as follows:


Invalid resolution due to procedural irregularities


The Tribunal confirmed the AGM vote against tree removal was valid and decisive, leaving no grounds to re-run it.


  • Evidence


    • At the AGM on 6 December 2024, the resolution to remove the trees was voted down (16 for, 17 against).

    • Minutes confirmed the vote was properly taken and recorded.


  • Applicant’s Argument


    • The AGM result should have been final; the resolution was defeated.

    • Any subsequent postal vote was an improper attempt to overturn that outcome.


  • Body Corporate’s Argument


    • The postal vote was a lawful mechanism available under the Unit Titles Act and regulations.

    • The manager suggested it to resolve uncertainty about how some votes were counted.


  • Tribunal’s Response


    • The AGM vote was decisive and valid.

    • There was no proper basis for re-running the same resolution by postal vote immediately afterward.


Legitimacy of the postal vote


The postal vote was declared improper because it attempted to overturn a lawful AGM result.


  • Evidence


    • On 20 December 2024, a postal vote was conducted; it passed with 19 in favour, 16 against, and 3 abstentions.

    • No new evidence of procedural error at the AGM was provided to justify re-voting.


  • Applicant’s Argument


    • The postal vote was procedurally irregular and effectively nullified the AGM result.

    • This undermined the integrity of the body corporate’s governance.


  • Body Corporate’s Argument


    • Claimed the postal vote was valid and properly notified to all owners.

    • They argued it gave unit owners another fair opportunity to decide the matter.


  • Tribunal’s Response


    • The postal vote was improper because it attempted to reverse a legitimate AGM result.

    • The resolution passed by postal vote was therefore set aside.


Need for a new extraordinary general meeting (EGM)


The Tribunal ordered a fresh EGM within 30 days to decide the tree removal issue fairly and transparently.


  • Evidence


    • The issue of tree removal remained unresolved and contentious among owners.

    • The Tribunal has authority under the Unit Titles Act to order an EGM when necessary.


  • Applicant’s Argument


    • A fresh meeting, conducted properly, was the only fair way to settle the issue


  • Body Corporate’s Argument


    • Acknowledged an EGM could be held but noted the costs and administrative burden.


  • Tribunal’s Response


    • Directed the body corporate to hold an EGM within 30 days, restricted to the tree removal matter.

    • Ordered that notice of the EGM include a copy of the Tribunal decision so all owners understood the background.


Outcome / ruling


The Tribunal succeeded in Mr. Sorokin’s application, setting aside the December 2024 postal vote and ordering the body corporate to convene an extraordinary general meeting to reconsider only the issue of tree removal and replacement. 


In doing so, the Tribunal emphasized that voting procedures must be transparent and fair under the Unit Titles Act, especially where close votes are at issue. Additionally, the body corporate was ordered to reimburse Mr. Sorokin’s $500 filing fee.


Key takeaways for unit owners and body corporates


This case offers valuable lessons for both unit owners and body corporate governance bodies.


  • Even body corporate decisions must follow strict procedural fairness under the UTA, just as in the property investors' rental market nz, where clear procedures are critical to maintaining fairness.

  • Calling a postal vote immediately after a narrowly lost AGM vote may raise suspicion if not transparently managed.

  • All unit owners must receive proper notice and information (including Tribunal orders) before critical votes.

  • Successful applicants can recover filing costs in certain UTA disputes.

  • The Tribunal’s power includes setting aside improper resolutions and ordering re-votes through EGM, as detailed in the How to resolve a dispute guide.


Overall, body corporates must tread carefully when pushing through contentious changes; fair process is not optional.


Broader insights from the ruling


This decision reinforces that democratic governance and procedural integrity are foundational in the unit titles regime. The Tribunal’s insistence on transparently redoing the vote underscores how close margin cases attract heavy scrutiny. It also signals to other unit owners that legal recourse is available if they believe a body corporate is misusing its powers. 


For practitioners and unit titles bodies, the case is a reminder to ensure clear rules for AGM, postal, and electronic voting, and to offer full disclosure and fairness in contentious decisions.


If you’re navigating a body corporate dispute, procedural challenge, or need help understanding how to enforce or challenge decisions, check out Staircase. We offer guidance, precedents, and support for property rights issues.


Comments

This publication has been provided for general information only. Although every effort has been made to ensure this publication is accurate the contents should not be relied upon or used as a basis for entering into any products described in this publication. To the extent that any information or recommendations in this publication constitute financial advice, they do not take into account any person’s particular financial situation or goals. We strongly recommend readers seek independent legal/financial advice prior to acting in relation to any of the matters discussed in this publication. No person involved in this publication accepts any liability for any loss or damage whatsoever which may directly or indirectly result from any advice, opinion, information, representation, or omission, whether negligent or otherwise, contained in this publication.

bottom of page