Petersen v Proserpine Golf Club Inc - [2018] QSC 71

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Petersen v Proserpine Golf Club Inc [2018] QSC 71

PARTIES:
BERNICE ELAINE PETERSEN

(applicant)
v

PROSERPINE GOLF CLUB INC
ACN 88 906 996 219

(respondent)

FILE NO/S: SC No 597 of 2017

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING
COURT:
Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 11 April 2018

DELIVERED AT: Townsville

HEARING DATE: 29 September 2017

JUDGE: North J

ORDERS:
1.    Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 19 August 2014 to suspend the applicant from membership for one month and rendering her ineligible for selection to represent the Club in any pennants or fixtures until the year ended 2015 is void.

2.    Order that the decision by the respondent made on 19 August 2014 to suspend the applicant from membership be set aside.

3.    Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 16 February 2015 to suspend the applicant from membership up to and including 30 September 2015 and to revoke the applicant’s life membership as of 30 September 2015 is void.

4.    Order that the decision by the respondent made on 16 February 2015 to suspend the applicant’s membership and to revoke her life membership be set aside.

5.    Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 21 July 2015 to suspend the applicant from membership for a further period of 12 months up to and including 30 September 2016 is void.

6.    Order that the decision by the respondent made on 21 July 2015 to suspend the applicant’s membership for a period of 12 months up to and including 30 September 2016 be set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – EXPULSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION – EXERCISE OF POWER – NECESSITY FOR SPECIFIC CHARGE – where the applicant’s life membership was terminated following an alleged breach of the rules of the association –– whether there had been a breach of natural justice – whether the respondent provided the applicant with appropriate particulars of the alleged misconduct – whether the applicant had sufficient time to respond to the allegations

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – EXPULSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION – EXERCISE OF POWER – BIAS – where the applicant requested an adjournment of the disciplinary meeting – where the respondent refused to grant the adjournment – whether the respondent was acting in a biased manner

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – EXPULSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION – POWER TO EXPEL, SUSPEND AND DISQUALIFY – where the rules of the association were silent on the issue of suspension - whether the respondent’s rules had been complied with – whether the appeal meeting was valid

LEGISLATION:

Associations Incorporation Act 1981, s 71

CASES:

Gould v Isis Club Incorporated [2015] QSC 253, considered
Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106; [1976] HCA 58, considered

McClelland v Burning Palms Surf Life Saving Club [2002] NSWSC 470, considered

COUNSEL:

V Keegan for the applicant

S Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Barbara J Mendelsohn Lawyers for the applicant
Airlie Beach Legal for the respondent

Introduction

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 Petersen v Proserpine Golf Club 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: [2018] QSC 71
Decision Date: 11 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Petersen brought proceedings against Proserpine Golf Club Inc. seeking to overturn a series of disciplinary actions taken against her, including suspensions from membership and a revocation of her life membership. The crux of the dispute lay in the alleged breaches of the Club's rules and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the procedural fairness of the disciplinary process and the Club's compliance with its own rules. Petersen argued that the Club had failed to provide her with adequate particulars of the alleged misconduct, thereby breaching natural justice. She also contended that the refusal to grant an adjournment for the disciplinary hearing indicated bias on the part of the Club. Furthermore, the issue of whether the Club's rules were followed correctly, particularly in relation to the suspension and revocation of her life membership, was critical.

The Tribunal found that the Club had indeed breached natural justice by not providing Petersen with sufficient details of the misconduct and by refusing her request for an adjournment. The Tribunal also ruled that the disciplinary meetings were not conducted in a manner that adhered to the Club's rules, rendering the decisions void. Notably, the Tribunal held that the Club's failure to provide a specific charge against Petersen meant that the disciplinary actions were not in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal issued several orders, including declarations that the decisions to suspend and revoke Petersen's membership were void and orders setting aside these decisions. Specifically, the Tribunal voided the decisions made on 19 August 2014, 16 February 2015, and 21 July 2015, and ordered that these decisions be set aside. The Tribunal's comprehensive ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the specific rules of the association in disciplinary matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 19 August 2014 to suspend the applicant from membership for one month and rendering her ineligible for selection to represent the Club in any pennants or fixtures until the year ended 2015 is void.

2. Order that the decision by the respondent made on 19 August 2014 to suspend the applicant from membership be set aside.

3. Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 16 February 2015 to suspend the applicant from membership up to and including 30 September 2015 and to revoke the applicant’s life membership as of 30 September 2015 is void.

4. Order that the decision by the respondent made on 16 February 2015 to suspend the applicant’s membership and to revoke her life membership be set aside.

5. Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 21 July 2015 to suspend the applicant from membership for a further period of 12 months up to and including 30 September 2016 is void.

6. Order that the decision by the respondent made on 21 July 2015 to suspend the applicant’s membership for a period of 12 months up to and including 30 September 2016 be set aside.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Petersen v Proserpine Golf Club Inc [2018] QSC 71
PARTIES:	BERNICE ELAINE PETERSEN (applicant) v PROSERPINE GOLF CLUB INC ACN 88 906 996 219 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 597 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	29 September 2017
JUDGE:	North J
ORDERS:	1. Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 19 August 2014 to suspend the applicant from membership for one month and rendering her ineligible for selection to represent the Club in any pennants or fixtures until the year ended 2015 is void. 2. Order that the decision by the respondent made on 19 August 2014 to suspend the applicant from membership be set aside. 3. Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 16 February 2015 to suspend the applicant from membership up to and including 30 September 2015 and to revoke the applicant’s life membership as of 30 September 2015 is void. 4. Order that the decision by the respondent made on 16 February 2015 to suspend the applicant’s membership and to revoke her life membership be set aside. 5. Declare that the decision of the respondent made on 21 July 2015 to suspend the applicant from membership for a further period of 12 months up to and including 30 September 2016 is void. 6. Order that the decision by the respondent made on 21 July 2015 to suspend the applicant’s membership for a period of 12 months up to and including 30 September 2016 be set aside.
CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – EXPULSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION – EXERCISE OF POWER – NECESSITY FOR SPECIFIC CHARGE – where the applicant’s life membership was terminated following an alleged breach of the rules of the association –– whether there had been a breach of natural justice – whether the respondent provided the applicant with appropriate particulars of the alleged misconduct – whether the applicant had sufficient time to respond to the allegations ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – EXPULSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION – EXERCISE OF POWER – BIAS – where the applicant requested an adjournment of the disciplinary meeting – where the respondent refused to grant the adjournment – whether the respondent was acting in a biased manner ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – EXPULSION, SUSPENSION AND DISQUALIFICATION – POWER TO EXPEL, SUSPEND AND DISQUALIFY – where the rules of the association were silent on the issue of suspension - whether the respondent’s rules had been complied with – whether the appeal meeting was valid
LEGISLATION:	Associations Incorporation Act 1981, s 71
CASES:	Gould v Isis Club Incorporated [2015] QSC 253, considered Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106; [1976] HCA 58, considered McClelland v Burning Palms Surf Life Saving Club [2002] NSWSC 470, considered
COUNSEL:	V Keegan for the applicant S Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Barbara J Mendelsohn Lawyers for the applicant Airlie Beach Legal for the respondent