Legal Research
Cases
Kaur v Sikh Gurdwara Perth (Inc)

Kaur v Sikh Gurdwara Perth (Inc)

Link copied

Case Copied 21 September 2017 37 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: KAUR -v- SIKH GURDWARA PERTH (INC) [2017] WASC 270

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 3-6 APRIL 2017

DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 2632 of 2015

BETWEEN: KARAMJIT KAUR
First Plaintiff
LAKHBIR SINGH SIDHU
Second Plaintiff
AMRIT PAL SINGH
Third Plaintiff
AND
SIKH GURDWARA PERTH (INC)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Associations and clubs - Standing - Where plaintiffs applied for membership of the defendant association - Whether there is a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant association - Whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation that decisions would be made in accordance with the defendant association's rules - Nature of interest sufficient to ground standing for a non-member of a voluntary association

Remedies - Declaration - Overriding discretion - Exercise of discretion to refuse grant of a declaration

Natural justice - Whether there has been a contravention of the rules of natural justice

Practice and procedure - Pleading - Whether plaintiff's case adequately pleaded

Legislation:

Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (Qld)
Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA)
Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (WA)
Health Act 1911 (WA), s 178
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 25(6)

Result:

Claim dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                  :     Mr I R Freeman
Second Plaintiff             :     Mr I R Freeman
Third Plaintiff                :     Mr I R Freeman
Defendant:     Mr M W Fatharly & Ms A L Spencer

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                  :     Lavan Legal
Second Plaintiff             :     Lavan Legal
Third Plaintiff                :     Lavan Legal
Defendant:     Kott Gunning

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Baker v Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division) (1997) 68 SASR 366
Blackler v New Zealand Rugby Football League (Inc) [1968] NZLR 547
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358
Carberry v Drice as Rep of Brisbane Junior Rugby Union (An unincorporated Body) [2011] QSC 016
Croome v Tasmania (1997) 191 CLR 119
Echunga Football Club Inc v Hills Football League Inc [2014] SASC 201
Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424
Finnigan v New Zealand Rugby Football Inc [1985] 2 NZLR 159
Forbes v New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 242
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421
Harrison v Hearn [1972] 1 NSWLR 428
Islamic Council of South Australia v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc [2009] NSWSC 211
Johnco Nominees Pty Ltd v Albury-Wodonga (NSW) Corporation [1977] 1 CSWLR 43
Lawton v Bidgerdii Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Corp Community Health Service Central Queensland Region [2004] FCA 1474
McClelland v Burning Palms Surf Life Saving Club (2002) 191 ALR 759
McInnes v Onslaw-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520; [1978] 3 All ER 211
Mutasa v Attorney-General [1980] QB 114
Parramatta CC v Sandell [1973] 1 NSWLR 151
Rose v Boxing NSW [2007] NSWSC 20
Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438
Shergrill v Khaira [2014] UKSC 33; [2015] AC 359
Stininato v Auckland Boxing Association…

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 Kaur v Sikh Gurdwara Perth (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: [2017] WASC 270
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Kaur and others, sought membership of the Sikh Gurdwara Perth (Inc) but were denied. They sought a declaration that the Gurdwara's decision was unlawful and that they had been denied membership without just cause. The defendant, the Gurdwara, contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the decision as they were not members of the Gurdwara and had no contractual relationship with it. The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the action, whether the Gurdwara's decision contravened natural justice, and whether the plaintiffs' case was adequately pleaded.

The court held that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring the action as they had a legitimate expectation that decisions would be made in accordance with the Gurdwara's rules. The court found that the Gurdwara's decision to deny the plaintiffs membership was not in accordance with the rules and contravened natural justice. The court held that the plaintiffs' case was adequately pleaded as they had set out a sufficient cause of action. The court declined to exercise its overriding discretion to refuse the grant of a declaration, finding that the plaintiffs' claim was in the public interest and that a declaration was an appropriate remedy.

The court granted a declaration that the Gurdwara's decision to deny the plaintiffs membership was unlawful and that they had been denied membership without just cause. The court also found that the Gurdwara had contravened natural justice by failing to provide the plaintiffs with an opportunity to be heard before making the decision to deny their membership. The court's decision provides guidance on the nature of the interest sufficient to ground standing for a non-member of a voluntary association and the exercise of the overriding discretion to refuse a declaration.

Orders