Federal Court finds “oppressive conduct” in South West Aboriginal Medical Service board dispute

A Federal Court judge has found “oppressive conduct” and factional control within the South West Aboriginal Medical Service (SWAMS), ruling that expulsion notices issued to a group of members and a director were invalid and unfair amid a prolonged governance dispute in Western Australia’s south-west.

SWAMS is one of WA’s largest Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations, with about 1,200 members across Noongar Country and a major role in delivering culturally safe primary health care and allied services.

The case arose after the SWAMS board moved to expel 20 members, including director and lead plaintiff Lesley Ugle, in the wake of escalating internal tensions. Those tensions included a confrontation at the organisation’s Bunbury headquarters in June last year, when members and founding Elders gathered to demand leadership change and greater accountability.

In reasons delivered on 17 February, Justice Craig Colvin found the expulsions were not handled with procedural fairness and that the organisation’s leadership had engaged in conduct that met the legal threshold for oppression under corporations law. The judgment also found the organisation’s affairs had been shaped by factional control to maintain power and avoid scrutiny, in circumstances inconsistent with the expectations of a member-based community organisation.

The court’s findings go beyond the validity of the expulsion notices, addressing broader governance questions including board elections, proxy voting and the conduct of annual general meetings. Justice Colvin indicated orders would be made to convene an annual general meeting and to modify constitutional arrangements around director appointments and proxy processes, including safeguards such as an independent chair and independent scrutiny of proxy voting. Final orders are expected to be determined later this month.

In a statement cited in reporting, SWAMS chair Phillip Ugle said the service was reviewing the judgment and considering its legal options, including appeal. “The actions taken by the board were made in what we understood to be the best interests of the organisation and its members,” he said, adding that SWAMS “respectfully disagree[s] with aspects of the court’s conclusions”. He also said clinical service delivery had remained unaffected and that the organisation’s priority continued to be “the wellbeing of our community and the continued delivery of quality, culturally responsive health services”.

For many members, the decision lands as both legal validation and a warning about how quickly governance conflict can fracture trust in institutions designed to embody self-determination. The coming weeks will be critical as SWAMS moves toward new elections and attempts to stabilise leadership while keeping frontline services insulated from the dispute.