NRMA Limited v Snodgrass

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.