Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of New South Wales Inc trading as Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association v Madden

Publication restriction: Nil

ex tempore JUDGMENT (revised)

1. These proceedings concern the internal management of the plaintiff, the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of New South Wales Inc, trading as the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association

2. The First and Second Defendants are former members of the Governance Committee of the Association. The Third Defendant, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, is the banker to the Association. The Association has at all times conducted the proceedings through its Public Officer, Mr William Robin de Bomford, without legal assistance. Mr Bomford appeared for the Association today.

3. The proceedings were commenced urgently before the Duty Judge with the filing of an amended summons on 11 December 2024. They presented facts common in these kinds of dispute. The First and Second Defendants challenged the validity of certain acts of the Association, and by reason of communications they had with the Bank had caused the Bank to be concerned about who was properly authorised to operate the Association's bank accounts.

4. The dispute in relation to the operation of the bank accounts was resolved by consent (or at least unopposed) orders made during the course of interlocutory hearings in December last year. The proceedings were stood over to the Registrar in February, and then fixed for final hearing before me today.

5. It has become clear during the hearing this morning that there is no longer any matter in dispute which would warrant the Court making the declarations or orders sought in the original amended summons.

6. In support of that conclusion, Mr de Bomford has confirmed to the Court that from the Association’s point of view everything is now functioning normally in relation to its operations, including its arrangements with the bank.

7. The Bank appeared today represented by Mr D Mustafa, Solicitor. Mr Mustafa also confirmed that on his instructions the Bank no longer had any concerns about who the proper persons were to operate the Association's bank accounts.

8. As often happens in cases of this kind, the underlying dispute was resolved in practical terms by the holding of fresh elections for the Governance Committee. Those elections took place as part of the Annual General Meeting of the Association on 14 December 2024 and resulted in the following persons being elected as members of the Governance Committee: Adrian Wong, Basim Shamaon, Neil Muc, Stefanie Chen, Jasmine Irwin, Shirley Robertson and Nidhi Shekaran.

9. There is no dispute that those persons now constitute the properly elected members of the Governance Committee of the Association. However, because there is no dispute, there is no need for the Court to make any declaration to that effect. No one has advanced any other reason why there would be utility in such a declaration.

10. The First Defendant, Mr Malakai Madden, has appeared today and informed the Court that he wishes to settle the proceedings. He has confirmed on the record that he no longer presses any of the complaints or concerns which gave rise to the proceedings. In particular, he accepts the validity of the outcome of the Annual General Meeting on 14 December 2024. He wishes no more than to continue as an ordinary financial member of the Association.

11. The Second Defendant, Ms Mary Kumar, has not appeared today. There have been some email exchanges between my Associate and Ms Kumar. The result of those is that Ms Kumar has informed the Court that she is unable to attend today and that she "will not be contesting the court case". The reason for her non-attendance is that she must care for her husband, who is on dialysis, and had a major operation last week.

12. The position has, therefore, been reached that whatever the merits of the dispute which gave rise to these proceedings, those issues have now been resolved.

13. Mr de Bomford has informed the Court that his instructions on behalf of the Association are not to press for an order as to costs. That, if I may respectfully say so, is a very sensible approach. Having regard to the principles set out in the oft-cited judgment of McHugh J in Re Minister For Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1987) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6, that would have been the outcome in any event in circumstances where the proceedings have in effect been settled, or come to an end for want of utility, without a final adjudication on the merits of the issues which gave rise to the proceedings.

14. I made orders earlier in the hearing by consent dismissing the proceedings with no order as to costs as between the Association and the Bank, and vacating certain orders that had been made in relation to the operation of the Association’s accounts with the Bank.

15. It remains only to make these orders as to the balance of the case:

16. Amended Summons otherwise dismissed; and

17. Note that the Court, by consent at least as between the Plaintiff and the First Defendant, makes no order as to the costs of the proceedings.

**********

Amendments

19 March 2025

Correction to representation details