Popovic & Ors v Tanasijevic & Ors No. Scgrg-96-279 Judgment No. S330

[1999] SASC 330

POPOVIC & ORS v TANASIJEVIC & ORS
[1999] SASC 330

1. OLSSON J                 In these proceedings the pleadings are extensive and raise complex legal and factual issues.

2. They focus on a dispute which has arisen within the Serbian ethnic community in Adelaide as to the proper membership and management of an incorporated body known as the Serbian Community Welfare Association of South Australia Incorporated (“the SCWA”).

3. The SCWA was essentially brought into existence in late 1986 for the initial purpose of entering into a joint venture, with another ethnic group, to  purchase and operate a nursing home in Norwood.

4. At a later stage the SCWA became involved in the acquisition of land at Pennington.  With the aid of substantial federal grants, it was involved in the development and operation of an aged care facility on the land.  This was known as the Pennington Aged Care Village.

5. In the present action, which was initiated in 1996, the plaintiffs have asserted that there have been irregularities and/or oppressive behaviour in the administration of the affairs of the SCWA.  Questions have also arisen as to who are the lawful members of the corporate body and its Committee of Management and other related matters.  Certain financial dealings by the defendant Tanasijevic with the SCWA are in issue.

6. The key issues arising on the pleadings depend for their resolution, in large measure, on a determination of what in law, at relevant times, was the content of Constitution and Rules of the SCWA. In that context the plaintiffs seek to impugn certain purported amendments of the Constitution and Rules which, inter alia, touch on membership eligibility.

7. The proceedings, inter alia, seek both declaratory relief under the Supreme Court Act, 1935 and specific orders pursuant to s 61 of the Associations Incorporation Act, 1985 based on conduct of some or all of the defendants said to have been oppressive or unreasonable.

8. Following the institution of the proceedings, there were extensive interlocutory processes prior to trial, necessitating numerous appearances before Masters, during a period extending from 27 March 1996 up to 10 November 1998.

9. There were also two separate and extensive forays before Judges of this Court, as a consequence of which a caretaker committee of the SCWA was installed pending the outcome of the litigation.  Injunctive relief was granted against the defendants.

10. The voluminous pleadings have been revised on several occasions, so that I presently have before me a third further amended statement of claim and a third amended defence and counterclaim.

11. It is to be noted that, at an early stage of the action, issue was joined in the pleadings as to the locus standi of at least two of the three plaintiffs to initiate and prosecute the proceedings.

12. Indeed, on 25 February 1998, the defendants filed an application for summary judgment, pursuant to SCR 25.04, against the second and third plaintiffs.  This was based on the ground that neither had “any standing to apply for the relief pleaded in the” statement…