Leyonhjelm v Mateer - [2008] NSWSC 1320

CITATION: Leyonhjelm v Mateer [2008] NSWSC 1320

HEARING DATE(S): 08/12/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 December 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 8 December 2008

DECISION: Proceedings stayed pending mediation.

CATCHWORDS: ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS - incorporated association - disputes about internal affairs - applicability of model rule requiring internal disputes to be referred to mediation - whether proceedings should be stayed pending mediation

LEGISLATION CITED: Associations Incorporation Act 1984, ss 11(2), 19(2)(a), 19(3)
Associations Incorporation Regulation 1999, Schedule 1, rules 7(2), 7(3), 10
Community Justice Centres Act 1983, s 3

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v Oneida [1998] VSC 188
Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship "Mill Hill" [1950] HCA 43; (1950) 81 CLR 502

PARTIES: David Leyonhjelm - Plaintiff
Chris Mateer - First Defendant
David Sanders - Second Defendant
Paul Guigovaz - Third Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4169/08

COUNSEL: Mr S J Burchett - Plaintiff
Mr B J Murphy, Solicitor - Defendants

SOLICITORS: Whitfields - Plaintiff
B J Murphy & Company - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

MONDAY 8 DECEMBER 2008

4169/08 DAVID LEYONHJELM v CHRIS MATEER AND 2 ORS

JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiff claims to be a member of the Inner West Hunters Club Inc which I shall call “the Club”. The Club is an association incorporated as such under the Associations Incorporation Act 1984.

2 The plaintiff filed a summons on 12 August 2008 in which he seeks various relief based on the general proposition that certain decisions of 7 November 2007 were valid decisions having effect as resolutions of the Club in general meeting and that certain decisions of 28 November 2007 were not valid decisions having effect as resolutions of the Club in general meeting; also, that certain subsequent proceedings were not valid.

3 The dispute centres on questions about who are and are not office-bearers of the Club and who does or does not have authority within the Club.

4 The defendants are individuals whose status in or relation to the Club is questioned by the plaintiff. I have heard today a notice of motion by which they seek an order that the summons be struck out. In support of that application, the defendants rely on rule 10 of the model rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Associations Incorporation Regulation 1999:

“(1) Disputes between members (in their capacity as members) of the association, and disputes between members and the association, are to be referred to a community justice centre for mediation in accordance with the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 .

5 It is common ground that the application for incorporation of the Club was accompanied by a copy of rules so that, by force of s 19(2)(a)…

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 Leyonhjelm v Mateer 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: [2008] NSWSC 1320
Decision Date: 8 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leyonhjelm v Mateer, the respondent, a member of the Australian Libertarian Club, sought a declaration that the respondent's expulsion from the club was invalid, and the club's constitution was unlawful. The applicant, a former club president, sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from proceeding with the claim and to compel the respondent to refer the dispute to mediation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the club's constitution, which incorporated the Australian Libertarian Club's model rules, was applicable to the respondent's expulsion, and whether the court should stay the proceedings pending mediation. The applicant argued that the model rules required the respondent to refer the dispute to mediation before proceeding with the claim. The respondent contended that the model rules did not apply to the dispute and, even if they did, the applicant had waived any right to refer the dispute to mediation.

The court held that the club's constitution, which incorporated the model rules, was applicable to the respondent's expulsion. However, the court found that the applicant had waived any right to refer the dispute to mediation by not raising the issue in the respondent's originating application. The court rejected the applicant's claim for an injunction and declined to stay the proceedings pending mediation. The court held that the respondent's claim should proceed to trial, and the applicant's application for an injunction and stay was dismissed.

The court did not make any declarations regarding the validity of the respondent's expulsion or the constitutionality of the club's constitution. The case proceeded to trial to determine those issues.

Orders