TROUBLESOME MEMBERS AND BLINKERED COMMITTEES........ ( First of three articles by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi on the law regarding the expulsion of members from clubs and voluntary associations. )

Club committees always face a difficult job when having to deal with members who behave badly towards their peers. However, when repeated incidents involve just two members behaving badly towards each other, the problem is even more acute. Unless action is taken immediately, the atmosphere within the club becomes distinctly unhealthy and destructive. Therefore it seems right that the guilty parties need to be counselled in some way to avoid further incidents.

With committee members not being behavioural scientists or psycho-analysts, it might also make good sense to try arbitration, bringing the two warring parties together to agree to a truce, usually by signing up to a code of respectful, non-provocative behaviour.

Unless this happens some troublesome individuals will continue to bait and insult one another, and in these dire circumstances committees are compelled to take sterner disciplinary action against them. Often incidents involve a complex cycle of provocative exchanges before one completely " loses it " in an outwardly aggressive way. How then should committees go about the task of deciding who is at fault, and in what way blame can be apportioned ? In the eyes of the law, self-induced provocation has always undermined any defence that it was the other party's provocation that caused the violent reaction.

Sadly, it is bridge clubs where emotions can run high. The game is intense, competitive and demanding. Players put themselves ( and partners ) under unnecessary pressure and stress. Tolerance thresholds seem easily breached. Little incidents which should only cause minor irritation will on occasions trigger over-the-top histrionics, especially when personality clashes are also involved. How to deal with serial offenders without prejudice or bias requires committees to tread a very careful path. In the case Barrie v Royal Colwood Golf Club (2001) the court took the view that even if disciplinary procedures were followed to the letter, they must still be carried out in good faith and with an open mind .

The trouble is, of course, committee members often lack the skills in knowing what procedural steps to take, or if correct steps are in place, as laid down by the club's constitution, how to follow them in accordance with the law. Going through the disciplinary process as prescribed is one thing, but operating in good faith, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice is another. " The skills and abilities of those who govern and manage social clubs are very varied indeed. Most simply set out to do a job with the best interests of the club in mind, claiming decision taken were done with the best of intentions ". Yet on some occasions, decisions may have been taken with malice aforethought at the forefront of their minds.

" When committee's actions ( or omissions) fall short of what the law requires, it is usually because they fail to recognise or address their own shortcomings ". For them the primary focus is on desired outcomes, and the means will always justify the ends. Expelling bad boys might well receive widespread applause and adulation, but the process is flawed if governed by a blinkered " guillotine " mentality. Any expulsion following a disciplinary process carried out in bad faith might well be declared as wrongful. Legal actions based on breach of contract , or loss of proprietary rights to the club's assets, will then be set into motion.

Sadly, it is the product of the human condition that makes committee members jaundiced and prejudiced against certain troubesome members. Subjectivity inevitably takes over from objectivity. The blinkers are on. This bias often seeps into " the tone and wording of letters and documents which emerge from exasperated and beleaguered committees ", but these will be seized upon as further evidence of bad faith. Indeed, any aggressive and uncooperative responses by a committee, towards a club member up for expulsion, " may well take the disciplinary process beyond the stage where reason and common sense prevail ".

In amateur run clubs and societies " there is always the risk of poor communication, inadequate responses to questions asked, misalignment of ideals and direction ". Personal agendas surface. Personal feelings are allowed to take control. Quiet reflection and a willingness to reconsider matters succumb to attitudes like " we are not for turning ", and " there's no going back ". Expulsions are a very serious matter . Not only must the decisions avoid the claim that they are harsh, excessive and unjust, but the process by which they were reached must also avoid claims of being flawed, improper and unfair. Even troublesome members have a right to be treated fairly, and to have the protection offered by long established rules of natural justice.

.....

( In the next article I shall be offering guidance as to what committees need to do if they do not want the spectre of huge court costs knocking at the club's front door ).