Key Facts
- •The Claimant, a former council member of the Defendant Club, was expelled from the Club on 30.11.2021.
- •The expulsion followed a complaint alleging the Claimant committed criminal offences by attending Club meetings on 26 and 27 October 2021 while potentially breaching Covid-19 quarantine regulations.
- •The Claimant claimed the expulsion was mala fide, breached the Club's rules and natural justice.
- •The Club asserted the Claimant's actions were injurious to the Club's reputation and warranted expulsion.
- •The Claimant's numerous allegations of financial mismanagement and cover-ups were largely unsubstantiated.
Legal Principles
Power to expel members is expressly granted in Club rules, subject to limitations.
Dawkins v Antrobus (1871) 17 ChD 615, Ashton & Read on Clubs, 3rd edition, para 7.11
Courts determine whether misconduct crosses the threshold for expulsion; mala fides or manifest absurdity are grounds for interference.
Wiles v Bothwell Castle GC [2006] SCLR 108
Club rules are construed as contracts; a degree of informality is tolerated.
Dawkins v Antrobus (1881) 17 Ch D 615, Re GKN Bolts & Nuts Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 774
Strict compliance with club rules isn't always required for validity; 'adequate compliance' or allowance for 'play in the joints' may suffice.
Speechley v Abbott [2014] EWCA Civ. 230, Re GKN Bolts & Nuts Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 774
Duty of good faith applies to club decisions, preventing arbitrary, capricious, or irrational actions.
Braganza v BP Shipping [2015] 1 WLR 1661
Rules of natural justice require fairness, including notice, opportunity to be heard, and an unbiased tribunal; flexibility depends on context.
Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 130, Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, Dymocks v Association for Dance [2019] EWHC 94, Young v Ladies Imperial Club [1920] 2 KB 523, Lee v The Showmen’s Guild [1952] 2 QB 329
Apparent bias test: would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude there was a real possibility of bias?
Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing [2005] EWCA Civ. 1117, AMEC v Whitefriars [2004] EWCA Civ. 1418
Accuser's participation in a tribunal isn't automatically a breach of natural justice; context matters.
Taylor v NUS [1967] 1 WLR 532
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Claimant's expulsion was justified; her actions breached Covid-19 regulations, and the Club followed a fair process.
No breach of natural justice found.
The Claimant received adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, and the tribunal wasn't biased. The absence of an appeal right wasn't a breach.
Allegations of mala fides and bias against KOF and PT rejected.
The evidence showed KOF and PT acted fairly and in good faith. The Club's Articles of Association did not require recusal.