Hewett & Ors v Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol [2001] NSWSC 1140

Hewett & Ors v Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol [2001] NSWSC 1140

The 17 April 1999 expulsion resolutions were void because the defendant conceded procedural irregularities. The 17 June 2000 resolutions were not invalid: Article 15 committed the relevant opinion to the Council, the letters were capable of being regarded as prejudicial to the RVCP and as rendering the first and second plaintiffs unfit for membership, there was no established male fides or procedural irregularity in the 2000 process, the Council had power to rescind and properly reconsider its earlier invalid decision, non-payment of subscriptions did not itself terminate membership, and Mr McInerney's participation did not invalidate the resolutions because s 228(4) of the Corporations...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Expulsion of Members From a Company Limited by Guarantee / Final Judgment on Summons
Outcome
The 17 April 1999 resolutions expelling Mr Hewett and Mr Silberberg were declared void; the application was otherwise dismissed; each party was to bear his or its own costs.
Legal Topics
['expulsion of Members' 'natural Justice' 'domestic Tribunals' 'reasonableness of Association Decisions' 'director Over 72 Years of Age' 'power to Reconsider Invalid Decision' 'costs']
['associations and Clubs' 'corporations' 'equity' 'administrative Law'] ['expulsion of Members' 'natural Justice' 'domestic Tribunals' 'reasonableness of Association Decisions' 'director Over 72 Years of Age' 'power to Reconsider Invalid Decision' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Expulsion of Members From a Company Limited by Guarantee / Final Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the resolutions of 17 April 1999 expelling Mr Hewett and Mr Silberberg were void because of procedural irregularities and inadequate notice under Article 15.' "Whether Article 15 implied a requirement that an expulsion decision be reasonable, and the extent to which the Court could review the Council's opinion." 'Whether the letters distributed by Mr Hewett and Mr Silberberg were capable of being conduct prejudicial to the interests of the RVCP or rendering them unfit for membership.' 'Whether the Council had power to rescind its earlier resolutions and reconsider the charges on 17 June 2000.' 'Whether Mr Hewett and Mr Silberberg were members at the time of the 17 June 2000 resolutions despite non-payment of subscriptions.' 'Whether the participation of Mr John McInerney, appointed when over 72 years of age, invalidated the 17 June 2000 resolutions under the Corporations Law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 17 April 1999 expulsion resolutions were void because the defendant conceded procedural irregularities. The 17 June 2000 resolutions were not invalid: Article 15 committed the relevant opinion to the Council, the letters were capable of being regarded as prejudicial to the RVCP and as rendering the first and second plaintiffs unfit for membership, there was no established male fides or procedural irregularity in the 2000 process, the Council had power to rescind and properly reconsider its earlier invalid decision, non-payment of subscriptions did not itself terminate membership, and Mr McInerney's participation did not invalidate the resolutions because s 228(4) of the Corporations...

Court Disposition

The 17 April 1999 resolutions expelling Mr Hewett and Mr Silberberg were declared void; the application was otherwise dismissed; each party was to bear his or its own costs.

Orders

  • ['That the resolutions of 17 April 1999, expelling Mr Hewett and Mr Silberberg, be declared void.' 'That the application to the Court be otherwise dismissed.' 'That each party abide his or its own costs.']