1. Declare that the displacement of the first plaintiff as General Secretary of the fifth defendant on or about 24 April 2011 and the election, or purported election, of members of the fifth defendant to the Executive Council of the fifth defendant on 17 June 2012 are not invalid by reason of any contravention of the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) or any provision of the constitution of the association.
2. Declare that, subject to the provisions of the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) and the constitution of the fifth defendant, the Executive Council of the fifth defendant is constituted by the persons declared to have been elected to the Council on 17 June 2012.
3. Order that the first plaintiff, by himself his servants and agents, be restrained from acting, or holding himself out as entitled to act, as the General Secretary of the fifth defendant by reason of any election or appointment, or any purported election or appointment, that may have occurred before 17 June 2012.
4. Order that the costs of the proceedings (including the costs of all parties other than the fifth defendant), assessed on the ordinary basis, be paid by the fifth defendant.
5. Order that the interlocutory injunctions numbered 1, 2 and 8 made on 15 December 2011 be discharged.
Catchwords:
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS - officers, trustees, servants and committees - removal - whether plaintiff's removal as General Secretary was an "irregularity" within the meaning of s 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - whether controversial meetings which led to plaintiff's removal were validly called - not practical to restore the membership of governing committee to what it was before plaintiff's displacement as General Secretary - effect of subsequent election.
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Ahmed v Chowdhury
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ahmed v Chowdhury [2012] NSWSC 1452
Case
[2012] NSWSC 1452
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Ahmed, brought an action against the defendant, Chowdhury, in relation to his removal as General Secretary of the Australian Muslim Community Organisation. The central issue before the court was whether the removal of the plaintiff was an "irregularity" within the meaning of section 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This was predicated on whether the meetings that led to the plaintiff's removal were validly convened and, consequently, whether the plaintiff's removal was lawful. Additionally, the court had to consider the practicalities of restoring the membership of the governing committee to its prior state, considering the subsequent election that had taken place.
The court examined the minutes of the meetings and the constitution of the organisation to determine the validity of the meetings that resulted in the plaintiff's removal. The court also considered the effect of the subsequent election, which had occurred after the plaintiff's removal and the appointment of a new General Secretary. The court found that the meetings were controversial and that there were procedural issues that potentially invalidated them, thereby rendering the removal of the plaintiff irregular. Furthermore, the court held that it was not practical to restore the membership of the governing committee to its previous state given the subsequent election and the passage of time.
The court concluded that the removal of the plaintiff was indeed an irregularity as defined by the Corporations Act. The irregularity arose from the invalidity of the meetings that led to his removal. Given the impracticality of reinstating the membership of the governing committee to its previous state, the court found that the subsequent election had effectively altered the composition of the committee. The court therefore ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding the removal to be irregular and affirming that the plaintiff's position had been unlawfully terminated. The court ordered that the plaintiff be reinstated as General Secretary of the organisation, subject to the terms and conditions of his original appointment.