Remedying a procedurally unlawful change to society rules

Procedurally unlawful changes to society rules Because most society rule changes are proposed by society committees or the processes for change are administered by the committee or officers (such as the secretary and chairman) this article is, in part, related to my last article (Relationship between Society Committees and General Meetings) exploring the relationship between society committees and general meetings. Society constitutions are not infrequently changed contrary to the procedural requirements in existing constitutions. Common types of procedural irregularity that arise are failures to comply with some condition precedent to a valid alteration, such as: Failure to give some or all society members notice of the meeting where the change is to be considered, Giving an inadequate period of notice to members of the meeting, The form of notice given to members being incorrect, The alteration being passed other than in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules (such as taking the vote when a quorum was not present, allowing the wrong people to vote, and having an inadequate majority), The alteration being adopted by a body not authorised by the rules to do so (for instance, by the executive rather than a general meeting of members or by some voting method not authorised under the rules), and Possibly, changing a rule which is entrenched (but see my article, Third Party Approval to Change Constitutions). Does registration cure any procedural defects? The instinctive response of most lawyers is likely to be that a constitutional change is ineffective if the preceding change process is unlawful. However, under, Incorporated Societies Act 1908, registration of the alteration is “… conclusive...