SINGAPORE COURT FOLLOWS SUIT ( SO TO SPEAK )....
A follow up law review by Carp


As in America, an appeal court in Singapore took a dim view of a club's decision to expel one of its members. 
So what were the reasons behind the court's decision to intervene ? Answer : the disciplinary process failed to adhere to the rules of natural justice , along with a failure to abide by its own rules as laid down in the club's constitution and regulations.
The list below reveals the main concerns and observations by the court :

1. Given that the member had been charged with a disciplinary offence, which involved criminal intent , then the committee should have applied the same burden of proof as required in a criminal court , namely " beyond all reasonable doubt ". 
2. The charge laid against the member  ( fraud ) lacked both merit and reliable evidence , and was therefore described as " inherently defective ".
3. A verdict of guilt was delivered without giving the member a hearing or other opportunity to respond before the punishment had been handed out.
4. The committee's decision to expel took into account an irrelevant consideration 
5. There had been proven interference with due process by one of the club's officers.
6. A failure during the process to forward relevant documents to the member for her response    ( if any )
7. Misinformation was given by the chairman to the member during the early stages of the disciplinary process.
8. The committee had acted in an ultra vires manner , contrary to its own internal rules , when it set about looking for evidence in connection with the investigation , which was the remit and responsibility of another designated group. This was noted as an undesirable practice in that decision makers should not also be investigators , as this could lead  to prejudgement or the likelihood of apparent bias.
9. The committee failed to bring to the attention of the member the evidence it had obtained on its own initiative , so that the member could respond to it , if necessary.
10. The punishment failed to fit the crime. Given that courts of law have to abide by principles of proportionality and reasonableness in imposing punishment on an offender , then so should committees acting in a quasi-judicial way.
11. The chairman did not pay sufficient attention to the appellant's explanation, and in doing so 
"missed the wood for the trees ".
12. The behaviour of the committee strongly suggested a real likelihood of a residual element of prejudgement regarding the case against the member. Prejudgement is a form of apparent bias and apparent bias is a breach of natural justice.

Not surprising then that the club lost the case with the suspension order being declared invalid.
All costs were made against the club, along with damages to be assessed by the registrar. A lesson for all club committees to take on board.