Gamilaroi Boomerangs Sports Aboriginal Corporation v New England Group 19
[1999] NSWSC 204
•17 March 1999
CITATION: Gamilaroi Boomerangs Sports Aboriginal Corporation v New England Group 19 [1999] NSWSC 204 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S): 1396 of 1999 HEARING DATE(S): 1 March 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
17 March 1999PARTIES :
Gamilaroi Boomerangs Sports Aboriginal Corporation (Plaintiff)
Members of New England Group 19 (First Defendant)
Country Rugby League of New South Wales Incorporated Reg No. Y0717232 (Second Defendant)JUDGMENT OF: Windeyer J at 1
COUNSEL : Mr. M. Dempsey (Plaintiff)
Mr. B. Gross Q.C. with him Mr. H. Bauer (First and Second Defendants)SOLICITORS: Stuart Percy & Associates (Plaintiff)
Colin W. Love & Co (First and Second Defendants)CATCHWORDS: ASSOCIATIONS - Country Rugby League - exclusion of the plaintiff from competition - power of the Boundary and Competition Committee to make a resolution altering boundaries of competition to exclude the plaintiff from the competition and not to include them in any other competition - no power to exclude plaintiff on the basis of conduct DECISION:
- 7 -IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISIONWINDEYER J
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH 1999
1396/99 GAMILAROI BOOMERANGS SPORTS ABORIGINAL CORPORATION v MEMBERS OF NEW ENGLAND GROUP 19 AND ANOR
JUDGMENT on separate question
General Outline
1 The Gamilaroi Boomerangs Sports Aboriginal Corporation has for some years fielded a team, which I will call the Moree Boomerangs, in the Country Rugby League Competition and more recently in what is known as the New England Group 19 Competition conducted under the auspices of the Country Rugby League of New South Wales Incorporated (CRL).
2 A resolution of the third defendant, if valid, has had the effect of excluding the plaintiff from the Group 19 Competition and according to the CRL from any competition conducted under its auspices.
3 On 17 February 1999 I ordered the following question be tried as a separate question:Whether the third defendant had power pursuant to the constitution of the second defendant to make the decisions purported to be made on 3 February 1999:
(a) to alter the boundaries of the Group 19 competition to exclude the Moree Boomerangs;
(b) determining that the clubs participating in the Group 19 rugby league competitions for 1999 shall be Guyra, Armidale, Glen Innes, Warialda, Inverell, Uralla, Walcha, Armidale YCW, Tingha and Narwon without including the plaintiff in some other competition conducted by the second defendant.4 The decisions of the Boundaries and Competitions Committee referred to in the separate question were as follows:
[To]
5 The CRL is a body formed for the purpose of promoting and conducting the game of Rugby League in New South Wales. Its objects and powers are directed towards this prime purpose and include power to control constituent bodies, power to define territories allocated to constituent bodies, power to determine which clubs shall be entitled to enter a team for league competitions conducted by the CRL, power to hear complaints against a constituent body, and power to impose penalties, including expulsion, on constituent bodies for breach of the constitution or rules and regulations of the League or the laws relating to Rugby League. The CRL is made up of constituent bodies. Those bodies include football organisations referred to as groups of which New England Group 19 is one, and clubs within divisions or groups.
(a) hereby alter the boundaries of the Group 19 competition to exclude the Moree Boomerangs; and
(b) determine that the clubs participating in the Group 19 rugby league competitions for 1999 shall be Guyra, Armidale, Glen Innes, Warialda, Inverell, Uralla, Walcha, Armidale, YCW, Tingha and Narwon .
6 The plaintiff has been accepted as a member of Group 19 for some years and at least until recent events was therefore a constituent body under Clause 4(c) of the constitution of the CRL.
7 The ordinary affairs of the CRL are managed by a general committee elected at an annual conference. The general committee has some power of delegation to sub-committees and certain specific sub-committees are provided for under the constitution, including a management committee, an executive committee, an appeal board and a boundary and competition committee. The provisions about appeals are quite elaborate, but appear on their face to be applicable in the most part to appeals by individual players and not to be applicable to some challenge by a constituent body to some decision made by some higher controlling body, such as the decision made by Group 19 about the Moree Boomerangs. In certain circumstances, which would include expulsion of a player, there is a further right of appeal to the general committee of the CRL.
8 Clause 36 of the CRL constitution is that relevant to the Boundary and Competition Committee:Boundary and Competition Committee - Amended 30.11.96
So far as 36(4) is concerned Clause 39 provides that for the time being Group 4, New England 19 and Group 21 are to form the Northern Division of the CRL.
36. (1) The Boundary and Competition Committee shall be elected at the Annual Conference and shall consist of the Executive plus three members elected from the General Committee - Amended 29.11.97
(2) Its duties shall be:
(a) to alter or otherwise fix boundaries as they deem advisable for the benefit of Rugby League within the area under control of the League
(b) to discuss and determine applications for alterations to Constituent Body boundaries, both Group and Divisional which shall be made by Constituent Bodies prior to 1st September in each year
(c) to hear and determine any matters that may be referred to it concerning boundaries by the Executive, Management Committee or General Committee
(d) to establish competitions within those boundaries and to determine which teams or clubs shall compete in those competitions from time to time - Additional 2.2.91
(3) The decision of the Boundary & Competition Committee shall be final
(4) Each Division shall form a special Boundary and Competition Committee within the Division to recommend competitions within the Division and shall submit same to the League Boundary & Competition Committee for consideration through their respective Division.
9 Clauses 40 to 43 deal with discipline and appeals. Clause 40 seems to be relevant to conduct of individuals. Clause 41, 42 and 43 are as follows:10 It is clear that there arose, at least during 1998, complaints about the conduct of Moree Boomerangs and their supporters, both on and off the field. For the purpose of the present decision it is not necessary to go further into this. At the annual general meeting of Group 19 held on 8 November 1998, it was resolved to accept all applications for affiliation for the 1999 season except that application of the Moree Boomerangs. At a general committee meeting of Group 19, held on 7 December 1998, a resolution to accept the affiliation of Moree Boomerangs was defeated. In other proceedings, Hamilton J has held that there was no power to pass the first resolution and no power in the general committee of Group 19 to take action which would have the effect of excluding the plaintiff from affiliation with Group 19.
41. The General Committee, Management Committee or Executive Committee may call upon any Constituent body or football association or organisation within it to make proper inquiry into any matter which in its opinion in any matter affects the control and welfare and/or interest of Rugby League Football. Failing compliance with any such direction the General Committee, Management Committee or Executive Committee may take such disciplinary action as it deems fit.
42. The General Committee or Management Committee shall have the power to disqualify, fine or otherwise deal with any Constituent Body or football association or organisation within it found guilty of any breach of this constitution or any by-law or regulation made thereunder or of any non compliance with any direction issued under the authority of this constitution or any by-law or regulation made thereunder.
43. Any person, Constituent Body or other body aggrieved by a decision of the Management Committee pursuant to Clause 40, 41 and 42 aforesaid, may appeal to the General Committee whose decision shall be final. The provisions of clause 31(10) of this Constitution shall be incorporated mutatis mutandis into this clause as though set out in full.
11 On 23 December 1998, the General Manager of CRL wrote to the plaintiff corporation stating that a meeting of the CRL Boundary and Competition Committee would be held on 23 January 1999. The letter went on to state:The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and determine applications for alteration to the boundaries of Group 19 and to determine which Clubs shall compete in the competition to be conducted by the Group. As your Club is a Club affected by the applications, the Club is invited through its representatives to attend the meeting and make such submissions as it is advised.
12 The CRL has determined boundaries of groups on a geographical basis for a considerable period. The latest map delineating those boundaries is in evidence and shows the boundaries as determined in 1988. There has been no change to these boundary lines made since. The whole of New South Wales apart from Newcastle, the Central Coast and Sydney, appears to have been divided into group areas. Moree would be in the Group 4 geographic area and originally it seems that two teams from Moree, namely the Moree Boomerangs and Moree Boars, played in the Group 4 competition. It seems that in 1990 the Moree Boomerangs were included in the Group 19 competition. In 1994 the Boundaries and Competition Committee resolved that the Moree Boars and the Moree Boomerangs be placed in separate competitions, those being the Group 19 and Group 4 competitions. Apparently there was then a draw conducted as a result of which the Moree Boars were placed in Group 4 and the Moree Boomerangs in Group 19.
After hearing all submissions, the Committee shall make a decision.
13 All this was done at a time when the relevant committee was called the Boundary Committee. In 1996 the constitution was amended and the name of the relevant committee was altered to the Boundary and Competition Committee. It seems this was because territorial boundaries had become less significant and some teams were playing in competitions outside their geographic group areas.Resolution of Separate Question
14 The third defendant says that the resolution was within the powers of the committee under Clause 36 of the constitution. I am not sure that it was really argued that it was within Clause 36(2), but in any event it could not have been, because there is no suggestion that the committee was dealing with an application for alteration of a boundary by a constituent body. In addition it is clear that the word "boundaries" refers to the boundaries of geographic areas. Insofar as the resolution is framed as being a determination of boundaries it is clearly void. Boundaries are not teams.
15 The argument based on Clause 34(2)(d) is somewhat stronger. However, the effect of the resolution is to expel the Moree Boomerangs from the CRL competition. A letter from the solicitors for the CRL dated 10 February 1999 makes this clear, as it says in its final paragraph, in response to an inquiry from the plaintiff's solicitors as to what competition the Moree Boomerangs team is part of that: "Your client, as a result of its past conduct, is not now part of a CRL competition". This letter, and the decision of the Boundary and Competition Committee itself makes it clear the action was taken on the basis of conduct and not capacity. The Committee report and decision says it was hearing "submissions, applications and complaints relating to Group 19". A power of expulsion needs to be clearly stated unless its implication is so obvious it goes without saying. When the appeal provisions concerning players' conduct are borne in mind, it would be extraordinary to imply power to exclude - at least on a ground other than lack of footballing capacity - with such decision to be final. I consider the widest powers given under Clause 36(2)(d) are to place teams outside geographic areas in competitions in those areas; to relegate and advance teams in the various grades; and to exclude teams which do not have the capacity to play in any available grade.
16 What the committee has purported to do is first to alter the boundaries of Group 19 in a manner for which there was no power, and then to exclude the Moree Boomerangs from the competition conducted in the altered boundaries. On any basis it seems to me that resolution is bad.
17 The result of all of this is that the first question should be answered - "No". I do not think that it is desirable to answer the second question yes or no as in its general terms it could go to capacity and not to conduct and I would have thought that the Boundary and Competition Committee should have power to determine that a team was not of sufficient standard to be admitted to play in any of the grades available in a particular group area. I would answer it "No if the basis of exclusion is based upon conduct".
18 I should end up by saying that I accept, as was pressed upon me at some length and with considerable emphasis by senior counsel for the League, that it is desirable that matters of this kind be determined, at least in the first instance, in the local area and possibly then be subject to appeal to the CRL. That is a matter which would readily be achieved by amendment of the rules of the CRL and of the group constitutions if necessary. This decision relates only to the power to make the determination made. It says nothing whatever about the conduct complained of which was the reason for the determination.
19 The answers can be recorded but as it is likely they determine the outcome of the proceedings the parties can consider whether final orders should be made and if so the terms of those orders.
I certify that paragraphs 1 to 19 are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment given by Mr Justice Windeyer in matter 1396/99 Gamilaroi Boomerangs Sports Aboriginal Corporation v Members of New England Group 19.
______________________________
Laurel Laurent
Associate to Mr. Justice Windeyer
17th March 1999.**********
0
0
0