Legal Research
Cases
Rose v Boxing NSW Inc

Rose v Boxing NSW Inc

Case [2007] NSWSC 20 31 January 2007

Standing

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Constructive Trust

Restitution

Judicial Review

Associations and Clubs

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Rose v Boxing NSW Inc & anor [2007] NSWSC 20

HEARING DATE(S): 8, 11 December 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
31 January 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

DECISION: (1) Declare that resolution of Executive Committee of first defendant in respect of plaintiff is void and of no effect. (2) Order that first defendant be restrained from acting upon, implementing, carrying into effect or otherwise treating as valid in any respect said resolution. (3) Give judgment that first defendant pay plaintiff $4,000.

CATCHWORDS: ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS - incorporated associations - expulsion procedures - natural justice – where defendant incorporated association is a federation of affiliated unincorporated associations and clubs – where plaintiff is a member of an affiliated unincorporated association - where defendant purports to expel plaintiff which has effect of barring him from involvement in amateur boxing in NSW – whether plaintiff has standing to claim declaratory and injunctive relief against defendant – held, he does – whether upon proper construction of defendant’s constitution its Executive Committee had power to discipline plaintiff – held, it did not – whether determination of Executive Committee affected by any breach of the Constitution or the rules of natural justice – held, notice was inadequate and communication to plaintiff of refusal to hear more than one witness was constructive failure to afford proper hearing – whether relief for denial of natural justice should be declined on basis that it was immaterial – held, relief should not be declined – whether excess of power and/or denial of natural justice cured by subsequent “appellate” proceedings – held, subsequent proceedings were not an appeal of the type which could “cure” any such defect - whether relief should be declined on discretionary grounds – held, it should not - whether damages available - held, they are - relationship between association rules and natural justice

LEGISLATION CITED: (NSW) Associations Incorporation Act 1984
(NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970, s 75

CASES CITED: Abbott v Sullivan [1952] 1 KB 189
Addis v Gramophone Company Ltd [1909] AC 488
Australian Workers' Union v Bowen (No 2) (1948) 77 CLR 601
Bailey v A'Hearn (1968) 13 FLR 199
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Bonsor v Musicians Union [1956] AC 104
Brettingham-Moore v St Leonards Municipality (1969) 121 CLR 509
Byrne v Auckland Irish Society Inc [1979] 1 NZLR 351
Calvin v Carr [1979] 1 NSWLR 1
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358
Carson v Legal Services Commissioner [2000] NSWCA 308
Collier v Sunday Referee Co Publishing Ltd [1940] 2 KB 647
Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243
Fagan v National Coursing Association of SA Incorporated (1974) 8 SASR 546
Field v New South Wales Greyhound Breeders, Owners & Trainers Association Limited [1972] 2 NSWLR 948
Finnigan v New Zealand Rugby Football Union Inc [1985] 2 NZLR 159
Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artid Plastics Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 393
Forbes v NSW Trotting Club Limited (1979) 143 CLR 242
Harrison v Hearn [1972]

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.

Continue reading Rose v Boxing NSW Inc

Details

AGLC: Rose v Boxing NSW Inc [2007] NSWSC 20
Case: [2007] NSWSC 20
Decision Date: 31 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rose v Boxing NSW Inc, the plaintiff, a member of an affiliated unincorporated association, challenged his expulsion by Boxing NSW Inc, a federation of affiliated unincorporated associations and clubs, from involvement in amateur boxing in New South Wales. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant, arguing that the expulsion was unlawful. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the claim against the defendant. The court found that he did, and proceeded to examine whether the defendant's Executive Committee had the power to discipline the plaintiff under the proper construction of the defendant's constitution.

The court held that the Executive Committee did not have the power to discipline the plaintiff, as the constitution did not grant them such authority. Further, the court found that the decision to expel the plaintiff was affected by a breach of the rules of natural justice, as the notice provided to the plaintiff was inadequate and the communication of the refusal to hear more than one witness was a constructive failure to afford him a proper hearing. Despite the denial of natural justice, the court held that relief should not be declined, as it was not immaterial. The court also found that the subsequent "appellate" proceedings did not cure the defects in the original decision, and that relief should not be declined on discretionary grounds. Finally, the court held that damages were available to the plaintiff, and that the association's rules and natural justice are interconnected.

The court's decision underscores the importance of proper procedures and adherence to the rules of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The court found that the defendant's failure to provide adequate notice and to allow the plaintiff to present more than one witness constituted a breach of natural justice, and that this breach could not be cured by subsequent proceedings. The court's finding that damages were available to the plaintiff highlights the potential consequences of failing to follow proper procedures and to afford individuals their rights under natural justice. Overall, the decision serves as a reminder to associations and clubs to ensure that their procedures are fair and just, and to provide adequate notice and opportunities for individuals to be heard before making disciplinary decisions.

Orders