In the recent case of Gina Mok v The Lansdowne Club, Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed Gina Mok’s claim against The Lansdowne Club in its entirety. Bates Wells Leticia Jennings and Katy Sawyer and David Reade KC acted for the Club throughout, and our statement about the judgment can be found here.
A significant case for social and private members’ clubs, there are several key considerations arising from the judgment.
What were the key takeaways from this judgment?
“As well as decisively seeing off Ms Mok’s claim, the judgment contains a thorough analysis of the rules of natural justice and how social clubs are entitled to operate.”
In contrast to previous press reports, the judgment in this case exposed dishonesty dressed up as a claim of bullying and discrimination. The Lansdowne Club sought to uphold the law, its rules and its own code of conduct by expelling a member for breaches of COVID rules in force at the time.
The judgment has clarified that the rules of natural justice are not a “one size fits all”. Clubs have rules governing conduct and constitutional matters, which form a contract between a club and its members. The judge found that the law of natural justice does not permit the implication of terms which contradict the express terms agreed between a club and its members.
The judge also found that there is no rule of natural justice which determines how a tribunal of a members’ club should run their disciplinary review processes. Clubs are not obliged to have an appeals process.
Clubs are obliged to act in good faith and in accordance with their own Articles of Association, rules and codes of conduct. When dealing with complaints, they are obliged to inform the subject of the content of the complaint, enable the subject to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to any such complaint, and have the complaint decided by a properly constituted tribunal, acting in good faith, rationally, taking into account relevant matters and excluding irrelevant matters.
What does this mean for social clubs now?
For social clubs, this judgment is likely to be good news.
Social and private members’ clubs, which operate on the basis of a contract with members, are free to set these terms without judicial interference. This extends to their governance structures and rules. In terms of any claims of this type in the future, the courts are likely to be slow to interfere, preferring instead to let clubs adhere to their own terms, providing they act in good faith.
What steps can be taken now to avoid issues in the future?
As a result of this judgment, there are several steps clubs can take. We would recommend a review of your current governance structures, member contracts, rules and code(s) of conduct.
We can help you to avoid future claims and provide advice around managing member disputes in the future.
If you have any questions around this case, or would like to discuss any issues or concerns, please get in touch with Leticia Jennings .