Islamic Association of Western Suburbs Sydney Incorporated v Survey

[2005] NSWSC 1255

CITATION:	Islamic Association of Western Suburbs Sydney Incorporated v Survey [2005] NSWSC 1255
HEARING DATE(S):	1/12/05
JUDGMENT DATE :	1 December 2005
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF:	Young CJ in Eq
DECISION:	No order made as to whether meeting is to be convened.

CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS & CLUBS [5]- Religious association- Meeting- Whether members given sufficient notice- Whether meeting should go ahead- Discussion of Court's approach to prevention of meetings of incorporated associations.
CASES CITED:	Re Ingleburn Horse and Pony Club Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 641
PARTIES:	Islamic Association of Western Suburbs Sydney Incorporated (P) Dr H R K Survey (D1) Abbas Chelat (D2) Aijaz A Khan (D3) Shujallah Kirmani (D4) Qamar A Khan (D5) Zaheer Shah Khan (D6) Mohammad Akram (D7) G Q Siddiqui (D8)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 6109/05
COUNSEL:	T J Hancock (P) N A Confos (D)
SOLICITORS:	Miltons Lawyers (P) Spanko Soulos & Co (D)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Thursday 1 December 2005

6109/05 – ISLAMIC ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN SUBURBS SYDNEY INCORPORATED v DR H R K SURVEY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application to prevent what is called an emergency general meeting of the plaintiff association which is scheduled to be held at 7pm tonight. The proceedings were commenced by summons filed at five past two, returnable at quarter past two, and I have heard evidence and submissions on both sides.

2 For the purpose of today's proceedings, the constitution of the plaintiff is taken to be that attached to both parties' evidence, but in particular annexure C to the plaintiff's evidence.

3 By amendment to the Constitution passed in October 1998, a standing committee, which consisted of all ex-presidents, ex-secretaries, together with the current president and secretary, may summon an emergency meeting of the foundation members of the plaintiff. The foundation members of the plaintiff are defined as those full members who participated in the first general meeting on 23 January 1983, plus full members who are financial for ten years, and who are elected as foundation members to the foundation members’ college.

4 There is a dispute between the parties as to who are the current foundation members. That dispute may be very difficult to resolve (see Re Ingleburn Horse and Pony Club Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 641) and may require an enquiry to be held by an Associate Justice. Obviously that decision cannot be made before 7 o'clock tonight.

5 Because there is a doubt as to who are the foundation members, and because the defendants, who represent the standing committee and the people who are as concerned about certain matters as members of the standing committee, do not possess a full official list of members, it may well be that not all the foundation members have been notified of the meeting. If that is the case then, unless it can be said that there has been an accidental omission, which one would think would be rather hard to establish in the circumstances, the meeting will be invalid and any decision it makes will have no effect at all.

6 It will be noted that the power to summon emergency meetings is not accompanied with any provision as to the length of notice. Where power is given to summon a meeting, and there is no specification as to the form of notice, then, as I understand it, the common law requires that there be a document setting out the business of the meeting in such a form as has been expressed in the book of Habakkuk 2:2 "he who runs may read", as well as reasonable notice.

7 What is reasonable notice will depend on a number of facts. However, those facts will include the seriousness of the business which is to be conducted, and guidance will also be conferred by the constitutional documents of the Association which specify the period of notice for non-important matters, or for annual meetings.

8 As Mr Hancock for the plaintiff points out, for these later matters periods of fourteen days or more are specified, and here we have a very serious matter, virtually the displacement of the governing body. However, the word "emergency" may mean that some shorter notice should be given. However, the very greatest amount of notice that could be given would have been eight days because the notice is dated 23 November and the meeting is for tonight, and it is quite clear that some foundation members have been given less than eight days' notice.

9 Accordingly, there must be very great doubts about the validity of the meeting. However, as I announced earlier, it is not the general policy of this Court to stop meetings occurring. It is often healthy for people to talk about their grievances and, indeed, it is often unhealthy for people, who may not have the full facts, to be told the Court has stopped the meeting. Thus, I do not intend to stop the meeting, even though I have the greatest of doubts as to whether it can effectively do any business.

10 What I will require, however, is that full minutes be kept of the meeting and the result reported to the court, and I will stand the matter over to some convenient day next week.

11 As I pointed out earlier, this type of dispute involving the foundation members is one which is very difficult to resolve legally, so for that reason, and for the reason that people who are meeting together for a religious purpose want to live in peace with each other, and not be warring, I would strongly recommend to the parties that if they have not previously been able to come to some accommodation, that they find the name of some mediator who might be able to assist in a resolution, rather than put the matter to a full hearing of this Court.

12 The only order I make is that I adjourn the matter to the Duty Judge's list on 13 December 2005 at 10am, and I reserve costs.

***********************