MOTORING CLUB DISPUTE

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27639, 21 April 1955, Page 3

MOTORING CLUB DISPUTE

SUSPENDED MEMBERS TO BE REINSTATED

Three members of the Vintage Car Club, who were suspended last year by the committee, are to be reinstated by the club. This is the result of an action brought in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice McGregor by one of the suspended members.

Brian Thomas Andrews, a student, sought a declaration that his suspension was invalid. Mr P. T. Mahon, with him Mr J. E. Millar, appeared for Andrews, and Mr R. W. Edgley for the club.

The plaintiff’s case was concluded during the afternoon and Mr Edgley asked for a short adjournment. After the adjournment Mr Edgley said the club had accepted his advice that the club had acted without reasonable cause in suspending Andrews. “The club will reinstate him, and also Bremner and Alexander," (the two other members suspended), said Mr Edgley. Mr Mahon said his client would withdraw his allegation of malice, or bias, or prejudice, and he did not ask for judgment. His Honour granted Mr Mahon’s application for costs and said counsel had taken a very reasonable attitude. “It seems to me very proper that a matter of this nature should be settled domestically rather than that the Court should have to deal with it,” he said.

This was an action brought against the club by the plaintiff in which he alleged he was suspended by the committee in July last year, said Mr Mahon. He claimed his suspension was invalid and he asked for a declaration that the resolution which suspended him was void and he asked for an injunction to restrain the club from carrying into effect that resolution. His client wished to withdraw his claim for £5O damages; he claimed merely the formal remedy of an injunction. Andrews was a university student who lived in Christchurch. He had been a member of the club—which had more than 120 members—since 1951, said Mr Mahon.

Andrews and three other members of the club each received a letter from the secretary asking for their resignation because of their conduct at the annual meeting. The letters said that if the members did not resign they would be expelled. Mr Mahon summed up his case as follows:

The rules of the club contained no power to suspend any member and therefore it acted ultra vires. Even if there was power to suspend there was no evidence before the committee to support the charge of gross misconduct. Even if the first two submissions were incorrect the plaintiff was never given a fair hearing. That the committee was actuated by malice against the plaintiff.

Evidence was given by the plaintiff. Selwyn Henry Frederick Jackson, company manager, William Henry Miller, plumber, Henry Gordon Sheppard, an engineer, and Lionel George Archer, a production engineer also gave evidence on the general meeting and subsequent events.