MEMBER v. CLUB DISPUTES : RESOLVING THEM IN COURT IS MADNESS.........( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi ) 

Common sense screams out that most disputes need to be resolved out of court. This high risk option should only be considered when all other avenues have been tried and exhausted. The costs involved in court actions will be obscenely disproportionate in relation say to damages claimed or awarded .
In my opinion,  it is far better to remain aggrieved and wronged but stay financially healthy, as opposed to fighting for justice and heading towards bankruptcy. If justice is to be fought for, then ADR has to be the most sensible way forward. What is the point of winning a battle and getting nominal damages, if the war is then lost when substantial court costs are awarded against you. 
The reasons why both parties need to seek compromise or conciliation in the form of a truce are both powerful and compelling, but these four should always be enough to steer even the bitterest of rivals to settle their differences first, before settling out of court. 

1. Possible costs exposure . For the most part, the rule in litigation is that the losing party pays the winner's costs. By suing for damages above what the judge sees as appropriate ( and what the other party has offered to pay ) could well mean losing your case in court. Indeed, costs can be apportioned in such a way that if a party has been unreasonable in approaching possible settlement negotiations, then it is more likely that the other party will be leniently treated with regards to costs.
2. Time commitment. Litigation takes a long time, and as the clock keeps ticking the legal bill keeps rising. If the case goes to court one has to weigh up the opportunity cost of all the time and money spent on such a high risk venture : resources that could have been far better spent on worthwhile and productive endeavours.
3. The law could change. In many areas, the law is constantly evolving, and in some areas it is changing quickly. With regards to disputes involving unincorporated associations the law is both scant and murky, with parties having to sail through uncharted and dangerous waters. Case law is an unpredictable beast. New cases can be distinguished on the facts from established precedents , creating exceptions or even exceptions to the exceptions. Even judges in the lower courts have the freedom and flexibility to create new law. 
4. Uncertainty of outcomes . Even if you have complete confidence in your case, there is no such thing as a " sure thing " when it come to litigation. The painful reality is this : when you go to trial there is always some possibility that you will lose out whatever the outcome. Moreover,  in closely fought legal battles much can depend on the skill of your barrister, and whether or not the judge is a strict conservative or an open-minded liberal. How will the witnesses perform ? What precedents will be relied upon by the judge ?  And in whose favour ? 

In conclusion, disputes which set out to resolve a conflict of rights inevitably end up with both parties totally hell bent on recovering their costs. Telling them " it was madness " at the outset to even consider taking a dispute to court will be words that will come to haunt them both , because only when the total legal bill is calculated  ........ will the penny finally drop.