Ms O’Connell was a Kawana Tennis Club Inc. (Club) management committee member, serving as vice-president and later president from December 2023 to August 2024. The Club was a Queensland incorporated association.

In September 2024, a new management committee was elected at a special general meeting that did not include Ms O’Connell.

The Club’s management committee purported to terminate O’Connell’s membership on 11 December 2024.

Ms O’Connell applied to the Supreme Court[1] under the Associations Incorporation Act (Act) for a declaration that the termination of her membership was void. It was argued that she was denied procedural fairness because she did not receive notice of the termination; the notice purportedly given did not adequately articulate the basis on which the decision to terminate was made; and the decision purportedly made was affected by apprehended bias because it was based on complaints made by the decision-makers themselves.

The Club argued that the decision was fairly made, adequate notice was given, and the application was premature because an internal appeal was available.

The Club’s constitution provided that the management committee could terminate membership for certain conduct, and the member was to be given an opportunity to present a defence. The member was entitled to appeal the decision to a general meeting of members.

The Club argued that it had sent various letters and emails to Ms O’Connell before the management committee meeting, which was to consider the issue of her membership termination.

Ms O’Connell claimed that she had not received the letters or the emails.

Based on the evidence, the Court found that Ms. O’Connell did not receive the materials.

The Court found [at 34]:

“Given that the applicant did not receive notification of the management committee’s concerns and therefore was not given any, let alone a “full and fair”, opportunity to present her case before the decision was made to terminate her membership, the decision to do so is invalid, because of the failure to abide the rules of natural justice in this fundamental respect.”

The Court found that the appeal process to a general meeting of members does not cure the deficiencies in the process adopted by the management committee before deciding to terminate.

Decision

The Court declared the Management Committee’s decision regarding the termination of membership void and set the decision aside.

Background

The Parliament has addressed the resolution of internal disputes within incorporated associations several times since the Act’s inception in 1981. In its latest amendments, effective from 1 July 2024, an incorporated association must follow the grievance procedure outlined in the model rules (clauses 12A to F) or adopt a formal grievance procedure in its own rules, meeting the requirements set out in section 47A of the Act.

Broadly, the Act’s grievance provisions need to:

  • allow a member to appoint any person to act on their behalf in a grievance;
  • give each party an opportunity to be heard;
  • allow unbiased mediation if the dispute cannot initially be resolved;
  • ensure a decision-maker is unbiased if the grievance procedure allows a person to decide the outcome of the dispute; and
  • the association cannot take disciplinary action against a complaining member or their membership representative until the grievance procedure is complete.

The provisions in the Model Rules provide the machinery for appointing a mediator, the timing of the process, the conduct of the mediation, and the costs.

The Act also enables an incorporated association or its members to make an application to the Supreme Court for directions and declarations regarding the association’s rules and the consequent rights and obligations.

Section 72(2) states that:

“However, an incorporated association or a member of an incorporated association cannot make an application under subsection (1) about a dispute under the rules unless the association or member has made reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute under the grievance procedure in the association’s rules.”

Furthermore, Section 73 of the Act grants the Court discretion to refuse to entertain trivial, unreasonable, or improper applications.

The case report did not address whether the grievance procedure was adhered to in the disciplinary proceedings.

[1] O’Connell v Kawana Tennis Club Inc [2025] QSC 60