LAW REPORT : SOOTHSAYER v. SLAUGHTER HOUSE BC COMMITTEE ( 2015 )

Yet another ruthlessly executed expulsion ended up in court for a judicial resolution , with the plaintiff demanding reinstatement and damages.Bigot-Johnson , club chairman and owner , was once again forced to defend his position claiming that the expulsion was fair and correct. As usual he elected to conduct the club's defence  , and a short extract from the trial's transcript can be seen below.


Counsel for the plaintiff ( CP ) :  My client has been the victim of a real injustice 
B-J : Like hell he has !
CP : Many of the issues involved in this case have entered the realms of equity law 
B-J : Well , I never .....
CP : Indeed , it needs to be noted that one of the fundamental failings of this committee is that they failed to treat my client the same way as they would another member who had committed a similar transgression. Equity requires all members to be treated the same , irrespective of how liked or disliked they are.
B-J : Listen muppethead .....what do you know.....this man is a serial loud-mouthed troublemaker , whose final straw act broke the camel's back. He deserved special treatment given all the grief and misery he has inflicted upon the club over many many years.
CP : Yes , his past history of misconduct may be relevant to the business of determining an appropriate sanction , but with regards to the actual complaint made he was entitled to be treated the same as any other member up before the committee on a similar charge of misconduct.  
B-J :  Exactly...
CP : However , where you and your committee failed was in the manner and way you  set about dealing with my client's alleged misconduct of slamming a door in the face of a member following close behind. 
B-J : That behaviour was disgraceful ! 
CP : So if other members had behaved like that .....  would they too face similar disciplinary proceedings ?
B-J : I've no bloody idea
CP : Well , like me remind you of what did actually take place. The committee member who made the complaint , on behalf of the alleged victim , admitted he had chosen to take this course of action because  he knew  " it would carry more weight if it came from him ". Clearly his intent was to ensure that the committee would respond differently....albeit in a stricter and unforgiving way......... towards my client ,  as a consequence of his committee status. This represents a clear breach of the equal treatment rule.
B-J : Which committee member said that......I'll have his guts for garters
CP : Moreover , the same committee member also admitted  that " if anyone else had done the same thing , he or she would have been treated differently ......and by that we can assume ......   .....more leniently. So yet again another breach of the equal treatment rule.
B-J : I'll have him.....I'll have him
CP : It is my contention that your committee would be more inclined to regard the slamming of a door as a thoughtless, inconsiderate , innocent perhaps wind-assisted act in most instances.....but in the case of my client you all decided to treat the same act as a violent assault...... using a door as a deadly weapon......just because he was on your hit list .
B-J : How in the blue blazes did you get to know about that ? 
CP : In terms of natural justice and equity my client was treated unfairly..... in a disturbingly robust and adverse way , 
Judge : I agree.....but I do believe the plaintiff is requires a lesson or two in shutting doors 
B-J : I've heard enough of all this bloody nonsense ( and at that point in the trial Bigot stormed out of the courtroom slamming of course all the doors behind him )



( Author's note : This spoof law report , like many others before , is based on a real life case , where the plaintiff successfully obtained a judgement for reinstatement as a member of his local yacht club. Having been expelled from the club following an altercation on a towpath with a son of a committee member , the judges ruled by a majority that the expulsion was wrongful , since the misconduct of the other party was completely overlooked. 
This contrast of outcomes clearly represented an invincible bias in favour of the committee member's son , condemning the plaintiff to be treated in a different , adverse and unjust way. 
As for the incident itself , the plaintiff found his way on the towpath blocked by the son's car , who was still occupying the driver's seat. Refusing to move the vehicle , the plaintiff elected to climb on the bonnet and walk across the car roof in order to continue his journey. Although the dents to the vehicle were paid for by the plaintiff ,  the committee still decided to discipline him , but in the process exonerated the driver's spiteful and provocative behaviour. )