LAW REPORTS:

• CARDINALS BC LADIES v CARDINALS BC (2009)
• MRS. BIGOT-JOHNSON ( AND OTHERS ) v CARDINALS BC (2009)

These two unusual cases were brought before Sir Les B. Avenue in the High Court. In both actions the plaintiffs were seeking compensation for injured feelings and rejection, which stemmed from the club chairman's 2004 decision ( who at the time was the man himself Bigot-Johnson ) to run most of the cup competitions on bank holidays. However, each case was presented on a different point of law, as the two following judgements reveal.

" The first plaintiffs, the bridge club's ladies, rightly claimed that for several years they have been the victims of sex discrimination. By continuing to hold many of its competitions on bank holidays the club had clearly disadvantaged these ladies. An expert witness, none other than a dear old colleague and friend of mine......Dr. John .....who I might add is now one of the country's leading authorities on the male and female psyche, proved to this court that men have far fewer scruples than women. That said, it was no surprise to be told that men have fewer problems or qualms about going absent without leave to play bridge on these hallowed family occasions. Accepting the argument that the CBC ladies possessed a different set of priorities, which naturally placed family commitments first, then it was never possible for them to (a) even consider playing bridge on bank holidays, and (b) let alone do so. Therefore, I can only arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the club's unfair scheduling did indeed exclude women, more so than men, from participating in many of its competitions. Damages of £500 will be awarded to each of the plaintiffs."

"As for the second set of litigants, headed by the long-suffering wife of the club's immovable and intransigent chairman, I see yet another group who have suffered loss and pain from the club's insensitive policy of running competitions on bank holidays. The evidence clearly indicated that the club's male members were forever sloping off to play in these events, deserting and abandoning their wives, partners and families in the process. The chairman himself was a serial offender. Indeed, I was left speechless by the stories of his selfish and heartless behaviour. The plaintiffs' claim for compensation was sensibly based on neglect, for which the CBC must be held vicariously liable for the actions of these deserters, who were always likely to place bridge at the top of their priorities. Indeed, there appears to be a precedent to support this view : in a commonwealth case of Don Trodden v Flamingo BC (1976) the club was deemed vicariously liable to family members, when a player , who was mercilessly harangued by his partner, went home in a troubled state of mind. He then set fire not only to himself, but also the family home. The club was rightly held liable for failing to intervene and stop the haranguing, since it failed to discipline the perpetrator on that night in question despite the several opportunities that arose. Justice demands that bridge clubs must be accountable for the tortious actions of their members, especially if such actions fall within the definition of being within the control of the club. In my view, the club owed a duty of care to Mrs. Bigot-Johnson to enjoy her Bank holidays with all members of her family present......including the incorrigible Bigot himself. This duty was broken time and time again whenever a bank holiday competition inveigled her husband away. All the plaintiffs were victims of neglectful behaviour, which the club was responsible for. The duty of care could have been carried out so easily, if the club had chosen to keep club competitions and bank holidays apart. Therefore I award £500 to each of the plaintiffs.........................and as for that dreadful husband of hers........ who just shouted "bugger" from the galleries......please have him arrested for contempt of court."