Yi Shuan Mok v Fitzmaurice House Limited

The Claimant, a member of the Club Council, alleged that her expulsion by the Club on 30 November 2021 was in mala fides, in breach of the Club's Articles, Rules and published procedures and in breach of natural justice. The Club relied on a complaint that the Claimant had attended the Club on 26 and 27 October 2021 in breach of the then-applicable COVID travel/quarantine Regulations while symptomatic, conduct said to be injurious to the Club's reputation under Rules 11.2/11.3 and capable of immediate expulsion.

The court treated the relationship between member and Club as contractual (Articles, Rules and Procedures), applied ordinary contractual construction and the implied duties of good faith and fair procedure where appropriate. The judge found that: (1) the Claimant returned to the UK on 24 October 2021, attended the Club on 26 and 27 October 2021 and did not hold or produce evidence of any UK clinical exemption or COVID pass; (2) on 27 October 2021 the Claimant knew or ought to have known she should have been quarantining but attended the Club; (3) the Club followed its Complaints Review Process (Stage A–C) and gave the Claimant the opportunity to be heard both orally and in writing (the Claimant chose not to submit written representations in time); (4) the Council's decision to uphold the complaint and expel the Claimant was not irrational or tainted by bias and fell within the powers in the Articles and Rules; and (5) any procedural misstep by the CEO in the initial handling was insubstantial and did not render the process void. The claim was dismissed.

The Claimant (a Council member) sued the Lansdowne Club after council members expelled her on 30 November 2021. She alleged mala fides, breach of the Club's Articles, Rules and published complaint/disciplinary procedures and breach of natural justice. The Club relied on a written complaint (from Deputy Chair PT) that the Claimant, recently returned from travel to Bulgaria and unvaccinated, had attended a Council meeting on 26 October 2021 and the Club again on 27 October 2021 despite having COVID-like symptoms and contrary to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) Regulations 2021. The Claimant asserted medical exemption and that she had sought and obtained advice from NHS 119 and her GP; she also relied on numerous governance complaints she had made while on Council and alleged bias and conflict by the Chair (KOF) and the complainant (PT).

Nature of the claim / relief sought: contractual claim for unlawful expulsion, declarations or an injunction to reinstate membership, and damages for loss and distress.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether the Claimant committed the conduct alleged and whether it amounted to a disciplinary threshold under the Club's Rules (Rule 11.2/11.3);
• whether the Club breached its Articles, Rules or adopted Procedures in handling the complaint and, if so, whether the process was void/voidable;
• whether natural justice required additional procedural protections (notice, opportunity to be heard, impartial tribunal, appeal);
• whether the Club acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, irrationally or capriciously; and
• what remedy, if any, should follow.

Key factual and procedural findings: the judge made contemporaneous-fact findings after reviewing documents and witness evidence. He found that the Claimant returned on 24 October 2021, attended the Club on 26 and again on 27 October, had no evidence of a UK COVID exemption or COVID pass when she attended, and had not provided medical or GP evidence to the Club before the Council meeting. The Claimant had offered to resign in an email on 27 October but then did not follow through and later disputed procedure and motive.

Court’s reasoning: the court treated the Articles, Rules and published Complaints Review Process as the contractual framework. The judge applied contract construction principles and the established authorities on club disciplinary powers and natural justice (including Dawkins v Antrobus, Re GKN Bolts & Nuts, Speechley v Abbott, Braganza and Ridge v Baldwin among others) to determine: (i) threshold: the alleged conduct (attending while required to quarantine and while symptomatic) was capable of falling within Rule 11.2/11.3 and therefore the Council had jurisdiction to consider it; (ii) procedural compliance: the Club followed its staged Complaints Review Process, the Claimant had the opportunity to make written and oral representations, and any limited departure (initial referral to the CEO) was insubstantial; (iii) natural justice and bias: the Articles contain their own conflict rules (Article 58) and the chair and the deputy chair were not shown to be biased in a manner that would raise a real possibility of prejudice to a fair-minded informed observer in all the circumstances of a small private members' club; (iv) rationality of decision: the Council’s findings were not Wednesbury-unreasonable and were supported by the available evidence (particularly the absence of documentary proof of exemption and the Claimant’s conduct after being told she should quarantine).

Outcome and relief: the court dismissed the claim, concluding the expulsion stood and that, even had procedural error been shown, reinstatement would not have been an appropriate remedy in all the circumstances.

The claim is dismissed. The court found that (1) the Claimant attended the Club on 26 and 27 October 2021 contrary to the COVID quarantine rules and without evidence of any UK clinical exemption; (2) the Club acted within the contractual powers in its Articles and Rules (Rules 11.2/11.3) and followed its Complaints Review Process in substance; (3) the Club did not breach natural justice or act in mala fides or with disqualifying bias; and (4) the Council’s decision to expel the Claimant was not irrational or disproportionate in the circumstances.