Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea Law Reports

Vanderlist v Mt Hagen Golf Club [1990] PGLawRp 292; [1990] PNGLR 315 (12 July 1990)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1990

[1990] PNGLR 315 - Judy Vanderlist v Mt Hagen Golf Club�

[1990] PNGLR 315

N894

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

VANDERLIST

V

MOUNT HAGEN GOLF CLUB

Mount Hagen

Woods J

12 July 1990

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Rules of natural justice - Duty to observe - Under rules of social club - Member permitted to attend meeting and answer charges - Where fair hearing penalty for club and not court.

CLUBS AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS - Expulsion and suspension - Exercise of powers - Under rules of club - Rules of natural justice apply to hearing - Where fair hearing - Suspension etc for club and not court.

Held:

N1>(1)����� Where a person, being a member of a social club, whether incorporated or not, is charged with some departure from the rules of the club and is faced with expulsion, or other detriment and the rules of the club permit the member to attend a meeting at which the member�s expulsion is to be considered and to answer the charges, the rules of natural justice apply to the proceedings of that meeting.

N1>(2)����� Where a breach of club rules has been committed and a fair hearing into the matter has taken place, any question of expulsion or suspension from membership is a discretionary matter for the club to determine in accordance with the club rules; it is not a matter on which the court should intervene.

Application for judicial review

This was the hearing of an application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Committee of the Mount Hagen Golf Club to suspend membership for 12 months.

Counsel:

D Poka, for the applicant.

R Howard, for the respondent.

12 July 1990

WOODS J.: The applicant is seeking judicial review of her suspension for 12 months imposed by the Mount Hagen Golf Club on 10 January 1990. This is the application for leave. Whilst applications for leave can be heard ex parte following service of the application on the Secretary of Justice, however, as in this case, the Secretary for Justice would have no interest in the matter because it involved a voluntary club and as there appeared to be no urgency in the application I refused to hear the application until the Golf Club was served with the application and I then allowed the Club to appear on the hearing of the application for leave.

The grounds on which the application for leave were made are bias, no opportunity to be heard, and excessive suspension. However only the no opportunity to be heard and the severity of the suspension were pressed at the hearing.

The applicant states she was given no opportunity to be heard on 7 December 1989 when she was given an initial 6 months suspension. The history of this matter is that there was an incident in the club on 2 December 1989 involving the applicant. On 7 December 1989, the Management Committee held a meeting over the incident and suspended the applicant. There is a disagreement over whether the applicant was given an opportunity to be heard at the meeting on 7 December. However the decision made on 7 December was reconsidered by the Club at a further meeting of the Management Committee on 10 January. When the applicant was advised of the decision of 7 December she was invited to come to the Committee�s meeting on 10 January. The applicant duly attended on 10 January and presented her explanation.

The principles are quite clear that where a person being a member of a social club, whether incorporated or not, is charged with some departure from the rules and is faced with expulsion or other detriment and the rules of the club permit the member to attend a meeting at which the member�s expulsion is to be considered and to answer the charges, the rules of natural justice apply to the proceedings of that meeting. The controlling body is exercising a quasi-judicial function when it determines a question of misbehaviour or other alleged infringement of the rules of the club.

The constitution of the Mount Hagen Golf Club does include a rule requiring a member to be given 7 days notice of any meeting which may consider the expulsion or suspension of a member and emphasises that a member shall not be so dealt with without first having an opportunity of appearing and answering the complaint.

Whether or not the applicant was given an opportunity to be heard at the meeting on 7 December she was clearly given an opportunity to be heard at the later meeting on 10 January and did so appear and was heard.

I therefore find there is no ground on that argument for me to grant leave for judicial review.

With respect to the severity of the suspension, the applicant would in the review be asking me to place myself in place of the Committee and consider the punishment the Committee should impose. We are not here talking about the applicant�s livelihood or job but her membership of a voluntary organisation for sport. And we are talking about an incident involving assault with a glass which resulted in injuries to the victim and a subsequent conviction of the applicant in the District Court for assault.

In the circumstances I can see no grounds at all for the Court to be able to apply its own discretion to the matter of the suspension of a member of a voluntary organisation once a breach of the rules has been committed and a fair hearing has taken place into the matter. All members have bound themselves voluntarily to certain rules and have agreed that if they breach these rules they risk suspension. I am not going to interfere in that procedure once I have been satisfied that the member has been given a fair hearing. I cannot impose my own discretion onto a club as to whether 3 months, 6 months, 9 months or 12 months suspension is appropriate where there is no question of livelihood involved.

In the circumstances therefore I feel that leave should be refused.

The application is dismissed.

Application for leave to apply refused

Lawyer for the applicant: Public Solicitor.

Lawyers for the respondent: Warner Shand.