Cambodian Buddhist Society of NSW Inc v Thai

In the case of Cambodian Buddhist Society of NSW Inc v Thai, the dispute arose from an election for the society's board of directors. The society applied to the Court of Appeal for interlocutory relief to prevent the defendants from acting as the society's board until the substantive proceedings were resolved. The primary issue was whether the election was conducted in accordance with the society's constitution and whether the applicants were entitled to an injunction to prevent the defendants from acting as the board.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature of the society and the legal framework governing its internal governance. It examined the provisions of the society's constitution concerning the election of directors and the procedures that must be followed. The court assessed whether the applicants had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and whether they were likely to succeed in their substantive claim. The court also evaluated the balance of convenience and whether the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the relief was not granted.

The Court of Appeal held that the applicants had established a serious question to be tried and were likely to succeed in their claim. The court found that the election process was flawed and did not comply with the society's constitution. Consequently, the defendants were not validly elected as the society's board. The court determined that the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and an injunction was warranted to prevent the defendants from acting as the society's board until the substantive proceedings were resolved. The court granted the interlocutory relief, ordering the defendants not to act as the society's board pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings.

The court's final orders included an injunction preventing the defendants from acting as the society's board until further order. The substantive proceedings were to continue, with the validity of the election being a central issue. The injunction was intended to preserve the status quo and ensure that the society's internal governance was not compromised pending the resolution of the substantive proceedings.