NRMA Limited v Snodgrass

Case [2001] NSWCA 312


CITATION : NRMA LIMITED v SNODGRASS [2001] NSWCA 312
FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40113/01
HEARING DATE(S) : 7 September 2001
JUDGMENT DATE : 12 September 2001

PARTIES :

NRMA LIMITED v WILLIAM SNODGRASS

JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 24; Sheller JA at 25
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT 
FILE NUMBER(S) : 
SC 4929/00
LOWER COURT 
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Windeyer J
COUNSEL :  Appellant: B R McClintock SC/ R S Hollo
Respondent: A Hartnell (Sol)
SOLICITORS :  Appellant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Respondent: Atanaskovic Hartnell
CATCHWORDS : Company Law - members' requisition for general meeting to put resolution to amend Constitution - amendment to require board election campaign funding details to be fully disclosed - whether meeting convened for proper purpose - NRMA v Parker (1986) 6 NSWLR 517 distinguished -whether amendment would constitute oppressive conduct - whether proposed article so vague as to be meaningless - whether amendment retrospective in effect (D)
LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Law, ss203D, 232-233
CASES CITED: Browne v Panga Pty Ltd (1995) 14 WAR 393
Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 432
Isle of Wight Railway Co v Tahourdin (1883) 25 ChD 320.
NRMA v Parker (1986) 6 NSWLR 517
Totally & Permanently Incapacitated Veterans' Association of NSW Ltd v Gadd (1998) 28 ACSR 549
DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40113/2001
SC 4929/2000

MASON P
MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA

Wednesday 12 September 2001

NRMA LIMITED v William SNODGRASS

JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: The NRMA is widely known as a service organisation and as a body racked by disputation over its structure and governance. The main venues of dispute have been the boardroom, the general meeting and the court. This appeal touches all three venues. It concerns a members’ requisition for a general meeting to put a resolution to amend the Constitution affecting a group of board members. Fittingly, the leading authority cited is National Roads & Motorists’ Association v Parker (1986) 6 NSWLR 517 (Parker).

2 In its current form, the much-amended Constitution of the NRMA provides for a board of 16 with half retiring in 2001 and half in 2003. Leaving aside casual vacancies, half the current board was elected in 1997 and half in 1999. Membership of NRMA is essential for board membership.

3 The requisitionists (represented by the respondent pursuant to Pt 8 r11) have complied with the statutory formalities (see Corporations Law (now Corporations Act), ss249D, 249P) for requesting the calling of a meeting and the distribution of an explanatory statement. The resolution proposed is:

1. That the Constitution of NRMA Limited be amended by inserting a new Rule 161, in the following terms:

“All directors elected to the Board in the 1999 half board election shall publish to members in the [following] report to members, full details of their election campaign funding including details of all donations and advertising, donated advertisements, and…

Continue reading NRMA Limited v Snodgrass

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NRMA Limited v Snodgrass [2001] NSWCA 312
Case
[2001] NSWCA 312
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by NRMA Limited against a decision concerning a requisition by a member, Mr. Snodgrass, for a general meeting. The dispute centred on Mr. Snodgrass's desire to propose a resolution to amend the company's constitution. This proposed amendment would have required the full disclosure of details regarding board election campaign funding.

The Court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the requisitioned meeting was convened for a proper purpose, distinguishing the present circumstances from those in *NRMA v Parker*. Further, the Court had to consider whether the proposed constitutional amendment would constitute oppressive conduct, whether the proposed article was so vague as to be meaningless, and whether the amendment would have a retrospective effect.

The Court reasoned that the proposed amendment was not vague and that the purpose of the meeting was proper, distinguishing it from *NRMA v Parker* where the purpose was found to be improper. The Court found that the proposed amendment did not constitute oppressive conduct and that it was not retrospective in effect. The appeal was ultimately dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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.