Bornecrantz v Queensland Bridge Association Inc - [1999] QSC 58

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND No. 71921 of 1998

Brisbane

[Bornecrantz v Queensland Bridge Association Inc]

BETWEEN:

LEIV RUBEN ANDERS BORNECRANTZ
Applicant

AND:

QUEENSLAND BRIDGE ASSOCIATION INC.
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - CHESTERMAN J

Judgment delivered 24 March 1999

The applicant, who appeared in person, is a devoted and accomplished bridge player. By his own admission he is also eccentric and stubborn. The respondent is an incorporated association whose objects are:
(a)the promotion, control and advancement of card games, particularly duplicate contract bridge, in Queensland; and
(b)conducting card tournaments within Queensland, particularly bridge tournaments and congresses.

Its constitution specifically empowers it to print and publish books and leaflets that it thinks desirable for the promotion of its objects and to do “all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of” its objects. The respondent’s affairs are to be managed by an executive committee, the composition of which is set out in the constitution. The executive committee is given “the general control and management of the administration of the affairs, property and funds” of the respondent and is authorised to interpret the constitution “and any matter relating to the [respondent] on which [the constitution is] silent.” The executive committee may delegate any of its powers to a sub-committee consisting of such members of the respondent as the executive committee thinks fit.

The membership of the respondent relevantly consists of bridge clubs which apply for membership or are affiliated with the respondent and “any bridge player who is a registered player of a member”, that is, a bridge club.

The applicant is not a member of the respondent.

The material filed by the parties assumes rather than imparts a knowledge of bridge and the organisation of bridge tournaments. It seems a fair inference that the game, though sedentary, and played in an atmosphere of quiet politeness, arouses passions in at least some participants which are not easily subdued. Tournaments are organised at national, state and local level and are designated by colour. “Red master point” tournaments are controlled by the respondent which delegates to clubs some of the responsibilities and functions of their organisation. The delegation is necessary because of a lack of human and financial resources in the respondent which is a voluntary association. “Green master point” tournaments are a purely club affair.
The applicant’s dispute with the respondent arises out of his participation in a red master point congress organised by the Moreton-Bribie Bridge Club Inc. at Bribie Island on 27, 28 June, 1998. The applicant was not, as I have said, a member of the respondent. Entry to the tournament was open to anyone holding an approved Australian Bridge Federation system card. The material does not allow me to describe this system of accreditation but nothing turns on it. The applicant and a partner entered the tournament and were accepted as participants.
The applicant’s eccentricities extend to the manner in which he records his written bids. While Mr Bornecrantz regards his habits as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bornecrantz v Queensland Bridge Association Inc and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] QSC 58
Decision Date: 24 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lei Ruben Anders Bornecrantz, an accomplished and eccentric bridge player, challenged a decision of the Queensland Bridge Association Inc. (QBA) to disqualify him from participating in certain bridge tournaments. The QBA, an incorporated association promoting and regulating bridge tournaments in Queensland, had disqualified Bornecrantz from the Moreton-Bribie Congress and imposed a further sanction, barring him from certain tournaments until 31 December 1999. The QBA's constitution empowers it to enforce tournament regulations and delegate disciplinary functions to a committee. The committee, consisting of members appointed by the QBA's council, had the authority to investigate complaints and impose sanctions.

The legal issues in the case revolved around the adequacy of notice provided to Bornecrantz, the potential bias of the committee members, the applicability of issue estoppel, the legality of the committee's decision as a restraint of trade, the committee's compliance with the QBA's constitution, and the proportionality of the imposed sanction. Bornecrantz argued that he was not given adequate notice of the committee's hearing, that the committee members were biased, that the committee was estopped from hearing the complaint, that the decision constituted an unlawful restraint of trade, and that the committee did not act in accordance with the QBA's constitution. He also contended that the sanction was disproportionate to his actions.

Justice Chesterman ruled that Bornecrantz had waived his right to adequate notice due to his deliberate decision to ignore the QBA's processes. The court found that the applicant's obstructive conduct precluded him from relying on insufficient notice. The court also dismissed the argument of bias, stating that actual bias must be proven in the case of private tribunals, and that the applicant had lost his right to object to the committee's constitution by declining to appear before it. The court held that issue estoppel did not apply to the committee's decision, as the tournament director's action was purely administrative and not a final adjudication of the complaint. The court further found that the committee's decision did not operate as an unlawful restraint of trade, as it did not significantly impact Bornecrantz's ability to earn income. The court confirmed that the committee acted in accordance with the QBA's constitution and that the sanction imposed was not disproportionate, considering Bornecrantz's repeated refusal to obey tournament regulations and disrupt the competition. Ultimately, the court dismissed Bornecrantz's application, finding no substance in his arguments.

Orders