Sunn v Japanese Chin Club

[2000] NSWSC 621

CITATION:	Sunn v Japanese Chin Club [2000] NSWSC 621
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Equity
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 1792 of 2000
HEARING DATE(S):	22 June 2000
JUDGMENT DATE:	6 July 2000
PARTIES :	Kathryn Lynette Sunn (Plaintiff) The Japanese Chin Club of NSW Incorporated (Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF:	Windeyer J at 1

COUNSEL :	Mr. M.J. Heath (Plaintiff) Mrs Margaret Campbell (Vice President of Defendant representing Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Cutler Hughes & Harris (Plaintiff) Mrs Margaret Campbell (Vice President of Defendant representing Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS - interpretation of constitution of Royal NSW Canine Council and affiliated club - right to show
DECISION:	See paragraph 7

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

THURSDAY 6 JULY 2000

1792/00 KATHRYN LYNETTE SUNN v THE JAPANESE CHIN CLUB OF NSW INCORPORATED

JUDGMENT

1    The plaintiff is a member of the Japanese Chin Club of NSW Incorporated (the Club). Japanese Chins are a breed of dog. The plaintiff has a partner, Phillip Poulton, and together they own a number of dogs and breed from them. Mr Poulton is not a member of the Club. For reasons not disclosed by the evidence, the Club has formed an unfavourable view of Mr Poulton. It resolved on 16 March 2000 as follows:

Due to his continued disruptive attitude towards The Japanese Chin Club of NSW Inc., the members and Executive of that Club, The Japanese Chin Club of NSW Inc., will not accept entries for any event run by The Japanese Chin Club of NSW Inc., from Phillip Poulton for any dogs owned directly or co-owned with others, for a period of twelve (12) months beginning at the date of the March, 2000 General Meeting of The Japanese Chin Club of NSW Inc.,"

2    The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the resolution was invalid and that the Club is not entitled, pursuant to its constitution, to reject entries for its shows of dogs co-owned by the plaintiff and by Mr Poulton. As the resolution purported to operate for one year only, and in the meantime any problem could be overcome by Mr Poulton transferring to the plaintiff his interest in any dog, he or the plaintiff wished to show, it is extraordinary that this matter is before the court for decision, but it is.

3    Mr Poulton is not a member of the Club. However, both he and the plaintiff are members of Royal New South Wales Canine Council Limited (the Canine Council), a company limited by guarantee. The Club is an affiliate of the Canine Council. To become an affiliate the proposed affiliating club is required to adopt a constitution for affiliates which is prepared by the Canine Council.

4    Members of the Canine Council are entitled pursuant to Article 11 to register dogs which are eligible for registration. Article 84 gives power to the board of directors of the Canine Council to make regulations including regulations for the holding and conducting of exhibitions. Regulations called "show regulations" have been promulgated. Show regulations 1.7 and 1.10 provide so far as is relevant as follows:

1.7 A dog shall not be entered as a competitor or allowed to be exhibited in a recognised show unless:-
(i) it is registered with the RNSWCC …
(ii) it is entered by its registered owner.
…
1.10 (a) A person shall not enter or exhibit or handle a dog at a recognised Show unless such person is a member …

Where there is joint ownership the application for entry need be signed by only one owner, but I do not consider that bears on the matter in issue here. The plaintiff and Mr Poulton are registered as owners of various dogs.

5    The constitution of the Club sets out its objects which include the following:

4
…

(c) To promote and raise the standards in exhibiting of dogs.
(d) The promote the holding of exhibitions and shows and to conduct exhibitions and shows.

Rule 15 sets out the privileges of membership for ordinary members. The relevant privilege under Rule 15 is as follows:


15 Subject to the restrictions and limitations prescribed by or pursuant to the Constitution, the privileges of a Member shall be:

(d) to exhibit at any exhibition or show conducted by the Club and compete for prizes (including trophies) available for members of the Club.

6    There are no further matters that are of any relevance other than to state that the Club does allow, or at least I was told that it allowed, some co-owners who are not members to join in exhibiting dogs.

7    The only question for decision is whether the Club is bound to accept entries into its shows of a dog not solely owned by a member of the Club, but co-owned, with a person not a member of the Club. It is clear enough in the Show regulation 1.10(a) "member" refers to a member of the Canine Council. Show regulation 1.7(ii) requires entries to be by "the registered owner". I consider it clear that "registered owner" means all owners not one of two or more co-owners. As the rules of the Canine Council give the privilege of exhibiting to members it would follow as a matter of course that the privilege was not necessarily available to non-members. Thus is my view the position is that unless all co-owners are members of the Canine Council and members of the affiliated club, then they are not entitled to the privilege of exhibiting. It also follows that a member of the affiliated club has privileges which are personal to that member and do not extend to that member with other persons who are not members. It follows from this that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed. The exhibits should be returned.

Last Modified: 09/26/2000