EXPELLED FROM A CLUB.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17828, 8 July 1921, Page 9

EXPELLED FROM A CLUB.

ACTION AGAINST COMMITTEE.

COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION. TROUBLE OVER A REPORT. A sequel to the expulsion cf four members from the Auckland Workingmen's Club was heard before Mr. Justice Salmond in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Richard Bensou, ironmonger, James Black Malcolm, accountant, Charles Arthur Watts, union secretary, and William Brierly, retired contractor (Mr. A. E. Skelton), sought an injunction restraining the club (Mr. Hall Skelton) from excluding them as members, and £30 each as damages for wrongful expulsion. The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiffs were not guilty of any offence or misconduct giving lawful cause for expulsion. No charge of any kind was formulated against them. They were not called upon to show cause why they should not be expelled, nor were they given any opportunity of being heard on the subject of their proposed expulsion. The statement of defence contended that the expulsion was not wrongful. A preliminary point as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case was raised by the Judge. After argument His Honor held that the rules of the club did not go far enough to annul the jurisdiction of the Court. If it could be shown that the committee in expelling four members had failed to act in accordance with the rules of the club then the matter came within the jurisdiction of the Court. He was prepared to go on with the case. Mr. Skelton said that in February, 1919, the plaintiffs, three of whom were members of long standings were, with Mr. W. Robinson, appointed a special commitee to investigate certain property affairs of the club. They formulated a fearless report which made a number of comments and criticisms as to actions of the trustees. The report was adopted at a special meeting in April, but another meeting was held in June when the resolution was rescinded. Prior to the second meeting the plaintiffs, with the exception of Malcolm, had the report printed and circulated it among membej-s, urging a careful perusal in view of the fact that the rescinding of the resolution would nullify the work performed by the sub-committee. In July the secretary of the club wrote to the plaintiffs informing them that they must apologise to the committee within seven days for the unauthorised circulation of the report. The plaintiffs refused, Malcolm stating that he had not been a party to the circulation, tfhile the others said they had merely done so in pursuance of their duty. In August the committee passed a resolution expelling all four from the club.

Mr. Skelton cited the case of Law v. The Wellington Workingmen's Club, in which Mr. Justice Sim held that unless the rules clearly provided otherwise tbo committee of such a club, in dealing with a charge against members, must proceed in a quasi-judicial manner and that the parties must be given reasonable opportunity of defending themselves. Mr. Hall Skelton contended that the /ules were framed to meet just such a condition as was revealed in the case of Liiti' v. The Wellington Workingmen's Club, and that the committee had power to expel members for what it considered to be misconduct, and it was not bound by the rules to afford the plaintiffs an opportunity of being heard. His Honor ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction. He fully approved of the decision in the case of Law v. The Wellington Workingmen's Club, and said the present case was indistinguishable from the authority. From a perusal of the rules, His Honor said, he was satisfied it was unconstitutional to expel members without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard in defence. He granted the injunction applied for, ordering the club to pay costs. The claim for damages was dismissed on the ground that the club did not provide any special benefits for its members.