Singh v Singh

The case of Singh v Singh involved a dispute concerning the governance and membership of an incorporated association. The association's rules provided that executive committee members were to hold office until the next annual general meeting when they would retire. However, no annual general meeting was held, and the board of trustees, which was to consist of a specified number of members, saw all but one member resign. The court had to determine whether the remaining trustee could function alone, and whether the admission of new members was properly conducted according to the association's rules. Additionally, the court examined whether a general meeting was properly requested, convened, and whether the board of trustees and executive committee were duly elected.

The court considered whether the remaining trustee could act alone given that the rules did not explicitly provide for this scenario, and whether the association's admission of new members complied with the requirement of a recommendation by the executive committee. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the general meeting was requested and convened in accordance with the rules and the model rule concerning the requisitioning of general meetings by members. The court found that the general meeting was not properly convened, leading to the invalidity of the board of trustees and executive committee purportedly elected at that meeting.

The court concluded that the remaining trustee could not function alone and that the association's admission of new members did not adhere to the required process. The general meeting was not requested and convened in compliance with the rules and the model rule. Consequently, the board of trustees and executive committee purportedly elected at the general meeting were not duly elected. The court granted the relief sought by the plaintiff, including a declaration that the purported actions of the board of trustees and executive committee were invalid and that the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the governance of the association. The court also considered the plaintiff's claim for equitable relief, taking into account factors such as delay and laches, ultimately deciding in favour of the plaintiff. The court found that the alleged interference with contractual relations did not constitute a valid claim as the necessary elements of a contract and knowledge of the contract by the alleged wrongdoer were not established.