Meeting notice and adjournment rules: statutory regulations prevailed, and the office-bearers' election was upheld as valid.

The governing regulations for Regional Council meetings were held to prevail over the Secretarial Standard, and their language was treated as directory where it used terms such as "ordinarily not less than seven days" and "as far as practicable." Notice, agenda circulation and advancement of the meeting time were found to be within that framework. Quorum was present, the meeting had commenced, and after the Chairman left, the Vice-Chairman could validly preside when requested by the members present. Once commenced, the Chairman could not unilaterally postpone the meeting; adjournment had to follow the applicable rule. The election of office-bearers was therefore valid, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the meeting of the Regional Council held on 26 December 2021 and the election of office-bearers conducted therein were valid in law, having regard to the notice, agenda, alleged non-compliance with the applicable regulations and Secretarial Standard, the advancement of the meeting time, the alleged postponement by the Chairman, and the subsequent intervention by the President and Secretary.

Analysis: The applicable regulations governing the Regional Council meetings have statutory force and prevail over the Secretarial Standard. The expressions "ordinarily not less than seven days" and "as far as practicable" in the regulations were treated as conferring discretion and not as creating a rigid mandatory rule. The notice issued on 18 December 2021, the agenda circulated on 23 December 2021, and the advancement of the meeting time on 20 December 2021 were held to be within the regulatory framework. The record of the independent Returning Officer was relied upon to hold that quorum was present, the meeting had in fact commenced, and after the Chairman left, the Vice-Chairman could validly preside when requested by the members present. Once the meeting had commenced, the Chairman could not unilaterally postpone it; adjournment required compliance with the regulation governing adjournment with the consent of members present. The election taken up by the continuing members was therefore valid, while the later rescheduled meeting became unsustainable.

Conclusion: The meeting of 26 December 2021 and the election of office-bearers were upheld as valid, and the challenge to them failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing regulations use directory language and provide a separate mechanism for advancement, quorum, voting and adjournment, those statutory regulations override a privately adopted meeting standard, and once a meeting has duly commenced with quorum, it cannot be unilaterally postponed without compliance with the adjournment rule.

---