Friday, 11 September 2015

LAW REPORT :  SATAN v BIGOT-JOHNSON ( AND OTHERS ) 2015

After another purge of undesirable members one at least felt it necessary to go to court claiming damages for wrongful expulsion. Bigot of course decided to conduct his own defence confident in the knowledge he was going to win. A short extract from the trial's transcript appears below. 

Council for the plaintiff (CP) : On what grounds was my client thrown out of your club ?
B-J : Because he was in breach of the club's dress code
CP :  Really ?
B-J :  Yes......the man wore hooves instead of shoes.... and had pointy horns sticking out of his head.....and what's more he always came dressed in a tight full-length black leotard , holding a trident in his hand
CP : Is that it ?
B-J : More or less...
CP : So what's your defence then to his claim of wrongful expulsion ?
B-J : Well , it's mainly based on a character assassination .....because let's face it ....the man's a devil....a nasty , evil bastard who should have been thrown out the club long before we were elected onto committee. Once we were in control his days were numbered ........
CP : I take it he got a fair hearing ?
B-J : No
CP : Are you saying the hearing was unfair ?
B-J : No.....
CP : I'm a little puzzled.....so tell the court what sort of hearing did he get ?
B-J : None at all.....we dispensed with such an irrelevance
CP : What no hearing at all ?
B-J : You see we had a job to do and by God we made sure it was done in a ruthless and efficient manner. We all knew what the outcome had to be .....so there really wasn't any point in giving him a hearing
CP : But surely even the most obnoxious and vulgar are entitled to respect , and according to the law be given an opportunity to defend themselves. My client was never given proper notice and an opportunity to confront his accusers before losing his membership.
B-J : Under the club's Constitution we used our discretionary right not to hold a hearing in his case given that the outcome was a foregone conclusion  ....... and we as a committee believe that things are best done in secret behind closed doors
CP : Well  in my book ......when expulsion is on the cards......holding an initial hearing becomes essential if rules of natural justice are to be adhered to
B-J : Sod them.....they don't apply to a small club like ours.....a privately owned and managed unincorporated association......surely to God we are exempt from judicial scrutiny......we are all amateurs when it comes to quasi-judicial matters....and we know that judges in past cases have allowed committees a fair bit of slack ......to make a few mistakes here and there in carrying out disciplinary procedures
CP : But quite a few of your committee members had a legal background......and should have known better than to deny my client a hearing. Moreover , you stated earlier how ruthlessly efficient and professional you were in carrying out this hatchet job 
B-J: Oh yes.....one dissident member......a smart-arse , trumped up Garrick room lawyer piped up with a load of awkward questions and concerns....and then had the audacity and nerve to say he felt obliged to act as the devil's advocate in his absence
CP : Did any of you listen to what he had to say ?
B-J : Hell no.....given that our minds were already made up , we weren't in the mood to discuss or debate any of his comments.... might is right ....and therefore the observations of this treacherous loner had no relevance or merit whatsoever 
Judge : Was this the same sane person who begged the committee to reconsider its decision and to seek mediation.... right from the off....... to resolve the dispute in a sensible , cost-effective , impartial way
B-J : Yes....but we engineered a mandate from the membership as a whole to hold our position and not to waiver
Judge : I'm speechless !

  




.  

No comments:

Post a Comment