Ridgway v Sporting SHOOTERS' Association of Australia Hunting & Conservation Branch (SA) Inc (No 2)

The case of Ridgway v Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia Hunting & Conservation Branch (SA) Inc (No 2) involved a former member of the defendant shooting club who was expelled from membership. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, a declaration that the expulsion was null and void and an order that he be reinstated as a member. The plaintiff complained that the defendant failed to afford him natural justice during the expulsion process, that the defendant engaged in oppressive or unreasonable conduct towards him, and that it failed to follow due process at the meeting during which the expulsion took place. The plaintiff also sought an award of damages. The defendant sought an order that the plaintiff pay its costs of the action on a party and party basis or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff pay a substantial proportion of its costs or, in the further alternative, that there be no order as to costs. The court held that the plaintiff was provided with proper notice of the defendant’s complaints against him together with sufficient time to prepare for and to address them at the 20 March 2013 meeting and to this extent was afforded natural justice. However, in reaching its decision to expel the plaintiff, the defendant did not act oppressively or unreasonably within s61 of the Associations Incorporation Act 1985. The defendant failed to afford the plaintiff procedural fairness at the 20 March 2013 meeting and, as a consequence, the resolution expelling him from membership for the 2012/2013 year was invalid. The plaintiff succeeded only as recorded in 3 and 6 above. The court found that the case brought by the plaintiff was a “substantial failure … whether assessed by references to causes of action or issues”. The plaintiff had been successful in eight of the 63 causes of action they had brought, and that, assessed as a proportion of the disputed questions of fact resolved in their favour, the success of the plaintiffs was substantially less than that. In these circumstances, there was clearly a reasonable basis for the judge’s conclusion that a “substantial injustice” would result from an award of costs in favour of the successful plaintiffs. The court concluded that to deprive the defendant of all of its costs would bring about a substantial injustice. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay a substantial proportion of the defendant’s costs.