EXPULSION OF MEMBERS : A CAUTIONARY TALE.......
( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

Having covered this topic ,  in earlier articles , from several  different points of view and perspectives , I sincerely believe that all bridge club committees should take on board the following advice : study very closely all the constitutional rules which relate to the disciplinary process , especially when it results in a member being expelled.

In Lee v The Showman's Guild of GB , Lord Denning was of the opinion that a court has a right to intervene , where there was a contractual relationship between the parties , and where the committee's decision to expel  could not be justified , given a lack of supporting evidence.

However , in a more recent high profile Malaysian case ,  the judge posed a more pertinent question : to what extent can the court intervene into the affairs of private clubs and/or unincorporated associations ? His view was that courts should always be prepared to examine the decision , if there are genuine concerns as to whether the tribunal/committee had observed the law. Moreover , this observance includes the correct interpretation of its own constitutional rules.

So naturally , he proceeded to give an illustration along the following lines. If say a committee is given power by its rules to expel a member for  gross misconduct , such as  violent or threatening behaviour , does that mean.........

( a) the behaviour has to be both violent and threatening.... or..... is it only necessary to prove one type to the exclusion of the other ?

(b)  the committee is the sole judge of what constitutes " violent "  and " threatening " behaviour ?  

With regards to the first question , the issue is whether or not the word  "or " really intended  mutual exclusivity . If the word  " either " had preceded the word  " or " then the  answer would be definitely yes. But what if the word " or "  had  been an incorrect substitute for  " and " requiring both elements to be present to establish gross misconduct ?  Indeed , a third possibility might exist  if  "and " had been omitted from the intended phrasing "and/or " , where all options were open.    Not an easy interpretation to make.

However , it is the second question which is far more likely to be relevant. Suppose the committee had put an entirely wrong construction on the words, by saying  that " waving a fist at a player several yards  away "  fell easily  within their rather wide interpretation of what " threatening  behaviour "  should embrace . However , it is the court's role to judge  what words actually mean within a given context  , and as such it might well take a different  albeit  a much narrower   interpretation of its meaning . A guiding principle often used is based on the argument that the alleged offender cannot guilty of threatening behaviour if no reasonable man could so find. In other words , if no reasonable man would ever consider  waving a fist in the air several yards away as constituting a real and immediate threat to anyone's physical safety then no offence has been committed.  Therefore, if the club member had been expelled for just a demonstrative and theatrical gesture , then surely he is entitled to seek a remedy in law.

In conclusion , it seems that the court might well adopt the following rationale for resolving all such disputes. When the member joins the club , he only agrees to the committee exercising jurisdiction according to a correct and true interpretation of the rules..... and not according to a wrong and incorrect interpretation. One for instance  which could have come  about as a result of either a ground swell of bias against the accused, or as a consequence of the committee's fierce determination to implement strict new zero tolerance policies.

So the message is clear for all bridge club committees. It pays to seek legal advice over every contentious step of the disciplinary process,  including of course the original drafting of the words used in the constitution , and the subsequent interpretation of words where the meaning is suddenly thrown  in doubt . Clearly,  any meaning arrived at  needs to be logical, sensible and not too wide, if only to reduce the risk of court action ,  because ignorance and contempt of the law could easily allow incorrect interpretations to take place , leading  of course to wrongful expulsions .