No.1556

CRITICAL ISSUES OF LAW REGARDING THE EXPULSION OF MEMBERS.......( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

In a fairly recent Australian case the judge tried to answer some key questions concerning this very controversial topic. The plaintiff in question had been effectively expelled from his club by the committee ,  because having been called to a meeting he was then asked to give up a privilege , which he steadfastly refused to do.  This unpalatable rejection forced the committee to seek the only solution to the problem : the termination of his membership .
The first key question was quickly answered when the State Supreme Court court held that any member had a right to claim the purported expulsion as invalid, if (a) breaches of natural justice, (b) contraventions of the club's rules of association, or (c) non bona fide practices could be established.
One of the arguments used by the committee was that his steadfast refusal was  "unbecoming " of a member , but the court took the view that any definition of such a word had to be in accordance with the ordinary and natural meaning of the word ( in context ). Choosing to ignore a request , which was clearly unreasonable in the given circumstances , hardly amounted to conduct which was offensive , salacious, ungodly, indecent or improper. 
The committee also claimed that his refusal to comply with their wishes amounted to conduct  which was " prejudicial to the interests of the club ".  Again any interpretation of this phrase depend very much on the facts of the case. The word " club " implies the membership as a whole ( not just the committee ) and " prejudicial " implies the membership would be put at a real disadvantage as a result of the plaintiff's conduct. To suggest his refusal would have a negative bearing or outcome on the ordinary members, without any real evidence,  leaves it wide open for a committee to do it as pleases, even on a jaundiced or whimsical belief. 
Next up was the question as to whether a member can bring an action against an unincorporated association, if his membership agreement was formed on a consensual basis, and not a contractual one. The judge took the view that a member always has a right to bring an action if he/she has acquired a proprietary interest in the club as a result of whatever type of agreement was entered to.  
This of course now led to the question as to whether or not the plaintiff had a proprietary right, especially if there was no obvious claim to an ownership share in the club's physical assets. Here the judge suggested that the sensible test for showing a proprietary interest is to consider whether or not the person derives a tangible benefit from his membership in that club .Tangible benefits can include the right to use and enjoy the social facilities, playing areas and/or recreational equipment .
Not surprisingly, his Honour spent very little time in establishing the plaintiff's right to sue. Moreover, the plaintiff was well within his rights to stand his ground over the committee's request, and that their inappropriate response clearly amounted to an abuse of good faith , regarding the exercise of their power. Therefore a permanent injunction was granted ,  requiring  the club to re-enter his name on the register of members.

( Footnote : This article is solely dedicated to all my anonymous followers who reside in the Derbyshire area )