In an illuminating judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that under the Corporations Act 2001, the term ‘address’ also encompasses a member’s email address, thus expanding the accessibility of company records for members. This article discusses the landmark case of Lawrence v Melbourne Football Club Ltd [2022] VSC 658, its implications for corporate governance, and the balance between open communication and privacy concerns.
Melbourne Football Club Ltd (MFC Ltd) planned a constitutional review, inviting its members for feedback. Among the responses was a group known as “Deemocracy”, led by member Peter Lawrence. Despite proposing several amendments, their suggestions were not incorporated, leading to a Special General Meeting announcement to discuss the changes.
To facilitate broader communication with members, Lawrence requested access to MFC Ltd’s member register. MFC Ltd supplied the postal addresses but denied Lawrence’s request for email addresses. This led to legal proceedings, spearheaded by Lawrence, seeking access to member’s email addresses.
Under the Corporations Act, all companies are obligated to maintain a member register, containing critical information, including “the member’s name and address”. A critical aspect of Lawrence’s case was whether ‘address’ also implied email addresses.
The Court, in its wisdom, declared that ‘address’ does encompass email addresses, particularly when members have elected email as their preferred means of communication. The Court held that the term ‘address’ is not solely confined to residential locations; it includes any place where communication can be established with a person.
The ruling upheld the legislative purpose of the Act, allowing member communication and promoting transparency in corporate governance. This judgment ensures that the democratic rights of company members are not compromised by restricting communication mediums.
Nevertheless, this ruling brings forth privacy concerns, with potential misuse of member’s email addresses being a significant issue. To counteract this, the Act provides measures against utilising register information for improper purposes, and sanctions for providing misleading information or unauthorised usage are present in the Criminal Code.
This judgment thus reaffirms the significance of open member communication for good corporate governance, while also acknowledging privacy concerns. It provides a basis for members to communicate via their preferred channels, ensuring a democratic and transparent corporate environment. By broadening the interpretation of ‘address’, the Supreme Court decision solidifies the member’s rights under the Corporations Act and paves the way for more open communication in the corporate sphere.
Contact us today to learn how we can assist you. To get in touch you can connect with us on (03) 8691 3111 or send us an email at hello@alliedlegal.com.au.
