[LINK] Australian Shareholders' Association

[Roger Clarke]

> On 30/10/20 10:11 am, Roger Clarke wrote:
>> ... assumption needs to always be that 'the law is an ass  ...

On 31/10/20 9:50 am, Tom Worthington wrote:
> Court hearings are now held online. Would a judge at an online meeting
> decide that online meetings are not legal?

That would depend.


> If they did you could appeal the decision on the grounds the online
> hearing was not legal, based on the precedent set by that judgement. Of
> course if the hearing was not legal then the decision is not valid, so
> it is not a precedent, in which case it is. ;-)

Yes, nice ploy.  But highly-paid draftsdogs and even more highly-paid
litigation lawyers could finesse their way around that without a blink.

A beginner's gambit that even this mediocre bush-lawyer can come up with
is to note that court hearings take place under a completely different
branch of law from mere human beings' meetings.

An important example is the Federal Court Rules:
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/rules-acts-and-regulations
> Federal Court Rules
> The rules provide the procedural framework within which matters are
commenced and conducted in the Federal Court. ...

Mere human beings' meetings are subject to the common law of meetings,
as codified and/or articulated and/or replaced and/or completely
confused by specific laws such as that under which a particular form of
body corporate is incorporated (Corps Act, Associations Incorp. Act,
Coops Act, specific enabling statute, and lots more), and don't ask me
where Equity fits in.

The law is a *complicated* ass.

</po-face>

-- 
Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University