GOLFER GRANTED INJUNCTION

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27147, 17 September 1953, Page 10

GOLFER GRANTED INJUNCTION

ACTION AGAINST CLUB COMMITTEE JUDGMENT IN CASE AT INVERCARGILL (New Zealand Press Association) INVERCARGILL, September 16. A verdict for the •plaintiff, Mrs Jean Smith Millar, in her action against eight members of the Queen’s Park Ladies’ Golf Club, was given in the Supreme Court today by Mr Justice North. The plaintiff, who had been suspended from all club fixtures, sought an injunction. His Honour, in a reserved judgment, said that the defendants in their statement of defence had acknowledged that the resolution suspending the I plaintiff from “all club fixtures* was mvalid, and no attempt was made at toe hearing to justify the committee’s action. This admission could not very well have been avoided, for the defendants were unable to point to any rule or direction authorising the committee to exercise a right of suspension. The plaintiff, moreovei'. was never informed of the nature of the charge, nor was she given the opportunity of being heard in her own defence. “It was alleged in the statement of claim that trie defendants had been actuated by malice, and had acted with bias or prejudice against the plaintiff, and included in toe prayer for relief was a claim for £lOO damages,” his Honour said. “In support of these allegations of malice, bias, and prejudice, very full and detailed particulars of a' rather sensational nature were given. “In opening for toe plaintiff, Mr G. Hall-Jones said that he now asked for nqminal damages only, and then only in the event of it being held that his client was not entitled to a declaration and an injunction. He said thaU: this being the case, he did not propose to call evidence in support of these allegations. It may be open to serious question whether these allegations at all events in the form in which they were made, should have been included in the statement of claim* for they contain matter which is clearly of an evidentiary nature.

“I say no more for it was agreed between counsel that it was unnecessary for the Court to be informed of the nature of the charge made against r the plaintiff, and in the absence of this ■ information it is difficult for me to determine how far. if at all, the allege- • tions could be regarded as relevant to the issues. As soon, however, as it was made plain that evidence was not being called in support of these allegations. I thought it right to strike out paragraph 16 (E) .and (D) of the statement of claim, because even if they were originally relevant, and therefore might have been justified, they now became scandalous, for they had ceased to be relevant. Effect of Committee’s Ruling “In my opinion,” his Honour added, “the words ‘all club fixtures’ refer to , the weekly and other matches ar- c ranged within the club, particulars of which, it was said, are published in a if. notice posted in the club rooms. I see no justification for holding that the re- ( solution interfered with the plaintiff’s right to enter the club premises, nor , do I think that it excluded the plain- t tiff from attending club meetings or , / voting at such meetings. In my opinion, then, the matter must be determined on the basis that the words ‘all club fixtures’ refer exclusively to club matches.”

His Honour held that the exclusion of the plaintiff from all club matches was an unwarranted restriction on the enjoyment of rights she possessed that were sufficiently related to her property rights to justify the Court’s intervention to. protect her interests. His Honour said that Mr I. A. Arthur, for the defendants, had submitted that once toe Court rejected the first submission made by counsel for the plaintiff, namely, that the words “all club fixtures” had the effect of excluding the plaintiff from taking part in club meetings and using the premises on such occasions, then the Court could not grant relief in any form. In his Honour’s opinion, however, counsel rights. Mr Arthur said there was nothing to prevent the plaintiff play-, mg golf on the links on match days by herself or with a partner if she should be fortunate enough to secure one. That no doubt was so, but in bis opinion it could nevertheless properly be said that the exclusion of toe plaintiff from all club matches was an unwarranted restriction.

His Honour said the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a formal declaration that toe resolution of suspension was invalid, and he thought it was a proper case for the granting of an injunction to restrain the club from enforcing the resolution, for the present attitude of the defendants appeared to be that they did not intend to reinstate the plaintiff, unless compelled to do so. The plaintiff was accordingly entitled to a declaration that the decision of the committee purporting to suspend her from “all club fixtures” was invalid, and she was entitled to the injunction applied for. Costs on the middle scale, witnesses* expenses, and disbursements for Mrs Millar are to be fixed by the Registrar.