This case is especially useful for not-for-profits, charities, member companies, clubs and community-controlled organisations. The business may not be run for ordinary shareholder profit, but governance still has legal teeth. Members are not background supporters if the constitution gives them rights to participate, vote, appeal expulsion decisions or hold directors accountable.
The Court looked at the organisation's character and purpose, including the not-for-profit and community context. That did not make the governance rules softer. If anything, it made fairness and accountability more important. Expelling members without proper procedural fairness, using processes in a way that entrenches a faction or resisting a properly accountable AGM can move from internal politics into oppression territory.
For small organisations, the practical lesson is to slow down before using disciplinary or constitutional machinery against members. Give real notice, explain the actual reasons, allow the member to respond, check the constitution, minute the decision and keep election processes independent where trust has broken down. Once a court has to reconstruct the meeting process, the organisation has usually already lost control of the governance story.