Dusica Moromilov v Sreta Dragicevic - [2013] ACTSC 91

DUSICA MOROMILOV V SRETA DRAGICEVIC
[2013] ACTSC 91 (17 May 2013)

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – Incorporated Associations – meetings – whether to hold a meeting at a particular venue – injunction sought – application dismissed
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – Incorporated Associations – jurisdiction of the Court to intervene in internal affairs of association – principles for court intervention
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – Incorporated Associations – meetings – power to call meeting – provisions in constitution
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – Incorporated Associations – membership – inadequate records – renewal of membership

Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT), ss 22, 48, 49, 131
Associations Incorporation Act 1858 (SA)
Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA), s 23(1)
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 69

Australian Capital Territory Rugby League (ACTRL) Inc v ACT Leagues Club Ltd (1992) 107 FLR 303
Bagga v The Sikh Association of Western Australia Inc [2012] WASC 193
Bateman v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2013] ACTSC 72
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358
Chifuntwe v Gardiner [2012] ACTSC 136
Dixon v Australian Society of Accountants (1989) 95 FLR 231
Dragosavljevic v Serbian Orthodox Church St Knez Lazar Incorporated [2002] ACTSC 19
Eltham v Municipality of Clarence (1957) 7 LGRA 303
Greene v McIver (2012) 263 FLR 450
Islamic Council of South Australia Inc v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc [2009] NSWSC 211
Maher v Carpenter (2012) 60 MVR 240
McKenzie v McKenzie [1971] P 33
Millar v Houghton Table Tennis & Sports Club Inc [2003] SASC 1
Navarro v Spanish-Australian Club of Canberra ACT Inc (1987) 87 FLR 390
Pettit v South Australian Harness Racing Club Inc (2006) 95 SASR 543
Royal Mutual Benefit Building Society v Sharman [1963] 1 WLR 581
Schagen v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 410
Serbian Cultural Club “St Sava” Inc v Radovanov [2012] ACTSC 60
Vesic v Serbian Cultural Club St Sava Inc [2002] ACTSC 119
Wayde v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd (1985) 180 CLR 459
Wishart v Foster (1961) 4 FLR 72
Young v Ladies Imperial Club Ltd [1920] 2 KB 523

No. SC 741 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 17 May 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 741 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

DUSICA MOROMILOV
Plaintiff

v
SRETA DRAGICEVIC
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  28 October 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application is dismissed.

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs.

This matter arose out of one of the various disputes that have leaked into the courts from amongst members and others involved in the Serbian Cultural Club St Sava Inc, (the Club). See, for example, Dragosavljevic v Serbian Orthodox Church St Knez Lazar Incorporated [2002] ACTSC 19; Vesic v Serbian Cultural Club St Sava Inc [2002] ACTSC 119; Serbian Cultural Club “St Sava” Inc v Radovanov [2012] ACTSC 60. In the latter judgment, Master Harper referred (at [5]) to “five sets of proceedings in this Court, five related proceedings in…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dusica Moromilov v Sreta Dragicevic and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] ACTSC 91
Decision Date: 17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dusica Moromilov versus Sreta Dragicevic involved a dispute within an incorporated association, specifically regarding the holding of a meeting at a particular venue and the jurisdiction of the court to intervene in the internal affairs of the association. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court. The plaintiff, Dusica Moromilov, sought an injunction to compel the defendant, Sreta Dragicevic, to hold a meeting at a specific venue. The court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to intervene in the internal affairs of the association and if the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles for court intervention in the internal affairs of incorporated associations, the power to call a meeting as outlined in the association's constitution, and the adequacy of membership records within the association. The court examined whether the plaintiff had a valid cause of action and if the association's constitution provided for the plaintiff's right to call a meeting at the specified venue. Additionally, the court considered whether the association's inadequate records regarding membership renewals affected the plaintiff's standing in the matter.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the internal affairs of the association and that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the proceedings. The court found that the provisions in the association's constitution did not grant the plaintiff the right to call a meeting at the specified venue. Furthermore, the court held that the inadequate membership records did not impact the plaintiff's standing. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

The court's final order was that the application for an injunction was dismissed, and the plaintiff was directed to pay the defendant's costs. This decision underscored the principle that the court generally refrains from intervening in the internal affairs of incorporated associations unless there is a clear breach of the constitution or a violation of legal rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.