When the Developer Still Controls Your Committee, What Can You Actually Do?

Key takeaways

• Every Australian state and territory has rules that limit or restrict a developer's voting power while they hold a majority of lots, but the protections vary significantly.
• In NSW, a developer holding 50% or more of lot entitlements has their vote reduced by two-thirds, a rule that catches many owners off guard.
• You can challenge unlawful AGM resolutions through your state tribunal, but time limits are strict and evidence matters more than frustration.
• The best protection is before you buy: check the strata roll, read the minutes, and count the developer's lots before you sign the contract.

You bought the apartment because you loved the light, the location and the price. What you did not check, because nobody told you to, was how many lots the developer still owned. By the time you sat through your first AGM and watched every motion fail because one entity voted down the entire room, the contract was signed and the levy cheque was already bouncing.

Developer control of strata committees is one of the most common structural problems in Australian apartment living, and one of the least understood. The rules that address it exist in every state and territory, but they are buried in legislation that most owners never read, and the practical steps for doing something about it are not obvious unless someone spells them out.

How a developer keeps control

In a strata scheme, votes are counted by lot. If you own one apartment, you get one vote. If the developer still owns 73 apartments in a 100-lot building, they get 73 votes. Every motion, every committee election, every budget approval goes their way. Independent owners can attend, speak, and object, but the numbers do not change.

This is not a loophole. It is the default state of many newly completed buildings across Australia, because developers typically sell apartments gradually over months or years. During that sell-down period, they hold the majority. In some buildings, they retain a significant minority indefinitely, which is enough to block special resolutions, block by-law changes, and control committee appointments.

The practical effect is predictable. The developer sets the initial levies low to make sales easier. They appoint their own people to the committee. They approve contracts with companies they control or have relationships with. Independent owners who raise concerns are outvoted on every count.

This is where the law steps in, but only if you know where to look.

The rules that exist (and why most owners never find them)

Every Australian jurisdiction limits a developer's voting power in some way, but the mechanisms, thresholds and enforcement pathways are different. The protections are real, but they only work if owners invoke them.

State / Territory	Key Rule	Legislation
NSW	Developer vote reduced by two-thirds when holding 50% or more of lot entitlements	Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, s 5
VIC	Developer must act in good faith while holding majority; specific voting restrictions on certain motions; Consumer Affairs oversight	Owners Corporations Act 2006, ss 83–85; Consumer Affairs Victoria guidelines
QLD	Developer's voting power reduces as lots are sold; transitional arrangements for initial period	Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, s 32; Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997
WA	Developer's vote reduced proportionally once 50% of lots are sold to independent owners	Strata Titles Act 1985, s 36
SA	Developer vote restrictions apply during the control period; Commissioner oversight	Community Titles Act 1996, s 37
TAS	Owner-builder and developer voting limits during initial control period	Land Titles Act 1980, s 82
ACT	Developer's voting entitlement reduced once 50% of lots independently owned	Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011, s 16
NT	Strata title legislation provides transitional control provisions for developers	Unit Title Schemes Act 2009

The common thread is this: the law recognises that a developer with a majority of lots has an inherent conflict of interest. They are simultaneously a seller, a building manager, a contractor selector and a committee appointee. The voting restrictions exist to prevent that concentration of power from becoming permanent.

But knowing the rule exists and enforcing it are two different things.

What you can actually do

NSW

New South Wales has the most clearly defined protection. Under section 5 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, if a person (including a developer) holds lot entitlements totalling 50% or more of the scheme, their voting power is reduced by two-thirds. This means a developer with 73 out of 100 lots effectively casts 24 votes, not 73.

This restriction applies to votes at general meetings, including AGMs and extraordinary general meetings. It does not apply to committee decisions made between meetings, which is one reason why committee composition matters so much during the sell-down period. The current wording lives in section 5 of the Act (the original-owner reduction). Confirm the text that applies on the meeting date; the principle has been stable even as clause numbers have been tidied.

If you believe a developer is voting in excess of their lawful entitlement, you can lodge an application with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) under section 232 of the Act. NCAT can declare a resolution invalid if it was passed with votes that should not have been counted. The time limit is tight, typically 28 days from the date of the meeting, so you need to act quickly.

The practical step: request a copy of the strata roll from your strata manager. Count the lots. If the developer holds 50% or more, their votes at the next meeting should be reduced. If they are not being reduced, raise it before the vote, not after.

Victoria

Victoria takes a different approach. The Owners Corporations Act 2006 does not impose the same blunt two-thirds reduction, but it does require the developer to act in good faith while holding a majority. Consumer Affairs Victoria has published guidelines on developer conduct during the control period, including obligations around conflicts of interest and self-dealing.

The significant change coming in 2026 is the reduction in the voting threshold for enforcing rule breaches. Previously, starting legal proceedings over a non-monetary matter required a special resolution, which effectively gave a developer veto power over any enforcement action. The new laws, introduced to Parliament in June 2026, drop this to an ordinary resolution. This matters enormously in buildings where the developer's tenants are the ones breaching by-laws and the developer votes to block enforcement.

If you are in Victoria and the developer is blocking enforcement or self-dealing through the committee, you can apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) under the Act. VCAT can examine whether the developer has breached their good-faith obligations and can make orders requiring the developer to disclose conflicts or refrain from voting on conflicted matters.

Queensland

Queensland's Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 includes transitional provisions that limit the developer's voting power as lots are sold. During the initial period, typically until the developer has sold 50% of the lots, the developer's voting entitlement reduces proportionally.

For disputes, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) can hear complaints about improper voting, conflicts of interest and breaches of the Act. The adjudication process is designed to be accessible without a lawyer, though complex cases involving developer control often benefit from legal advice.

Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and NT

Each of these jurisdictions has its own version of developer voting restrictions, generally tied to the percentage of lots sold to independent owners. The mechanisms are less publicised than in NSW and Victoria, but they exist.

In WA, section 36 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 reduces the developer's voting power once 50% of lots are independently owned. In SA, the Community Titles Act 1996 includes a control period during which the Commissioner can oversee developer conduct. The ACT's Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 follows a similar pattern.

If you are in any of these jurisdictions and believe a developer is exercising excessive control, start by contacting your state's relevant authority: Fair Trading in NSW, Consumer Affairs Victoria, the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management in QLD, or the equivalent in your state. They can tell you what rules apply and what your options are.

How to challenge an unlawful AGM resolution

If a developer has passed a resolution at an AGM using votes that should not have been counted, or using proxy votes that breach the rules, you have grounds to challenge it. The process is similar across most jurisdictions, though the tribunal names and time limits differ.

Step 1: Get the minutes. You are entitled to a copy of the meeting minutes. Request them from the strata manager. The minutes should record who voted on each motion and the outcome. If the minutes are vague about voting, that itself is a problem.

Step 2: Identify the breach. The most common grounds are: votes counted in excess of the developer's lawful entitlement, proxy votes that breach statutory limits, failure to provide proper notice of the meeting, and resolutions passed without the required voting threshold.

Step 3: Gather evidence. You will need the strata roll (showing who owned what at the time of the meeting), the meeting notice and agenda, the minutes, and any proxy forms used. In some cases, you may need a statutory declaration from an owner who attended the meeting.

Step 4: Apply to the tribunal. In NSW, this is NCAT. In Victoria, VCAT. In QLD, QCAT. The application must typically be lodged within 28 days of the meeting, though some jurisdictions allow longer for certain types of claims. Check your state's time limits carefully, because missing the deadline can extinguish your right to challenge.

Step 5: Attend the hearing. The tribunal will examine the evidence and decide whether the resolution was lawfully passed. If it was not, the tribunal can declare the resolution invalid and order a new vote or new meeting.

The success rate for well-evidenced challenges is reasonable, but the process requires patience. Tribunal proceedings typically take three to six months from application to determination.

When tribunal action is worth it (and when it is not)

Tribunal action is not free. Filing fees range from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand, depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the claim. If you engage a lawyer, costs can escalate quickly. Before committing to a challenge, weigh the practical outcome against the cost.

Tribunal action is usually worth it when:

• The developer passed a resolution that directly costs you money, such as approving contracts with related parties, setting unreasonably low levies that lead to special levies, or blocking necessary maintenance.
• The breach is clear and well-documented, with voting records, minutes and strata roll all telling the same story.
• Multiple owners are affected and willing to participate, and a group application carries more weight and shares the cost.

Tribunal action is usually not worth it when:

• The grievance is procedural but the outcome would have been the same anyway, and a technical breach that did not change the result is harder to justify.
• You are the only owner who cares, and a solo application against a developer with deep pockets is an unequal fight.
• The developer has already sold down and the problem is self-correcting, because once the developer's holding drops below the threshold, the voting restrictions no longer apply.

In every case, attempt mediation or direct communication first. Some developers will correct a voting error if it is pointed out in writing before the meeting, rather than face a tribunal challenge afterwards.

Work the numbers before the meeting

Take a 100-lot NSW building. The original owner still holds 60 lots. Independent owners hold 40. On a show of hands that is 60–40 before any adjustment. After the two-thirds reduction that applies when the original owner holds at least half the unit entitlement in a scheme of more than two lots, those 60 lots do not vote at full value. The meeting should treat the original owner's voting value as one-third of that holding.

That does not automatically give independent owners the room. Ordinary resolutions are often one vote per lot, special resolutions usually run on entitlements, and proxies can still stack the independent side or the developer side. Do the arithmetic on the actual motion: is it a show of hands, a poll, a special resolution, or a resolution without dissent? Then apply the original-owner reduction only where the Act says it applies.

The reduction is a voting rule, not a levy discount. The developer still pays levies on every lot they own. Owners who confuse those two facts waste the meeting.

Contracts, caretakers and the first two years

Control is rarely just about who sits on the committee. It is about what was signed while one party still had the numbers.

Look for:

• A long building-management or caretaker agreement entered in the initial period
• A strata management contract with a related entity and a long fixed term
• Insurance placed through a broker connected to the developer
• Common-property licences that give one lot exclusive use at a peppercorn rent
• Defects that the committee, still developer-appointed, has minuted as "cosmetic" or "owner responsibility"

NSW and several other states restrict what an owners corporation can do during the initial period without a tribunal order: long appointments, large improvements, and some by-laws. If those things were done anyway, the contract is not automatically void, but it is challengeable. Get the agreement, the date it was signed, and who voted. Then get advice. Do not withhold levies while you argue about the caretaker. That creates a second problem.

Independent owners can still pass useful motions once the vote is counted correctly: instructing a lawyer to advise on a related-party contract, commissioning an independent defect report, requiring quotes from firms with no connection to the original owner, and putting committee elections on a secret ballot where the Act allows it.

Proxies and attendance in a developer building

Proxy farming is how a fading majority is stretched. Off-the-plan buyers who have not moved in yet are easy to collect. So are investors whose rental agent has a standing form.

Before a contentious AGM, ask the secretary in writing how many proxies each person holds, including the original owner and the manager. Apply the statutory proxy cap as well as the original-owner vote reduction. They are different rules. A developer who is over the proxy cap cannot park extra owner votes on a staff member and call it democracy.

Attend. A posted proxy from an independent owner who later walks into the room is usually overridden by their personal vote. Empty chairs are how a 40-lot minority loses a 28-person meeting.

What you can do before you buy

The strongest protection against developer-controlled committees is due diligence before you sign the contract.

Check the strata roll. Your conveyancer or solicitor can obtain a strata records search before settlement. This will show you who owns each lot. If the developer or related entities hold 50% or more, you are buying into a building where you will have limited voting influence until the sell-down is complete.

Read the meeting minutes. Look at the last two years of AGM and committee meeting minutes. Are motions passing unanimously or near-unanimously? That may indicate a developer block vote. Are independent owners raising concerns that are being voted down? That is a red flag.

Ask the strata manager directly. How many lots does the developer still own? Is the sell-down complete? When is the next AGM? What is the committee composition? A strata manager who cannot or will not answer these questions is itself a warning sign.

Compare levies against comparable buildings. If the levies seem unusually low for a building of that age and size, the developer may have set them artificially low to aid sales. Low levies in the first two years often lead to sharp increases or special levies once the developer exits and the building's true running costs become apparent.

Read the building-management and facility contracts. A 10-year caretaker deal signed three weeks after registration is not a detail. It is the business model. Ask who can terminate it, on what notice, and whether a termination payment is built in.

Look at the defect and warranty file. If there is no independent report, no claims register and no mention of waterproofing or fire issues in two years of minutes, that is not proof the building is clean. It may mean nobody independent has been allowed to look.

After you already own

If settlement has happened, you are not stuck with silence.

Write to the secretary before the next general meeting and ask, on the record, how the original owner's vote will be counted. Attach the roll extract if you have it. If the chair proceeds at full value, object, have the objection minuted, and vote under protest. That file is what a tribunal later reads.

Put owners you trust up for the committee. Even a minority of independent members can demand papers, force conflicts onto the minutes, and stop "noting" a related-party invoice. Removal of a developer-aligned member is a separate motion with its own threshold; do not mix it with a budget fight.

If the original owner is also your landlord's related entity, or you are an investor whose tenants deal with the building manager daily, keep those roles separate in writing. A tenant complaint about a caretaker is not a substitute for an owners-corporation resolution.

Group together. Three owners with the roll, the minutes and one solicitor's letter will get further than one owner sending late-night emails. Share the filing fee. Do not run parallel tribunal applications on the same meeting.

Keep a simple shared folder: roll extract, last two AGM packs, the caretaker and management contracts, the defect report if you have one, and every letter that asked how the original owner's vote would be counted. When the 28-day clock starts, you will not have time to reconstruct that file from WhatsApp.

Diary the sell-down. Each lot the original owner sells changes the arithmetic. After a cluster of settlements, ask for an updated roll before the next meeting. A building that was 55% original-owner in March can be 48% in June. The reduction may drop away. Independent owners who still vote as if they are a permanent minority will miss a window to replace the committee and retender a related contract.

How UnitBuddy supports the work

UnitBuddy's building wellness tools give you visibility into your building's governance, financial health and maintenance activity, so you can identify developer control issues early, before they cost you money.

---

The law protects you, but only if you know the rules exist. A developer who controls your committee controls your levies, your maintenance, and the value of your home. Find out who owns what before you buy, not after you are stuck.

Further reading

• VIC: Victoria's new strata laws announced, what's changed, what's coming, and what it means for you, via LookUpStrata
• NSW: Navigating the Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, via LookUpStrata
• How to Read a Strata Search Certificate: The Buyer's Essential Checklist, via Body Corporate Fees
• NSW Government: Strata repairs and maintenance, via NSW.gov.au

UnitBuddy publishes general information for Australian strata owners and committees. It is not legal advice. For guidance specific to your scheme, seek independent professional advice.