Challenge to club expulsion

A keen snooker player expelled from the Clubs of Marlborough did not get a fair hearing, his lawyer says.

Blenheim man Robert Henderson was suspended and then expelled from the club on August 29 last year after concerns raised by a non-member.

Henderson brought the case to the High Court in Blenheim on Monday, where Justice Dobson was asked to review the actions or decisions of the Clubs of Marlborough to see whether they acted within their powers.

Henderson’s lawyer Simon Gaines argued the expulsion process was not conducted fairly in that Henderson did not have a hearing and was not informed of his expulsion before it was made public in a club newsletter.

He also said there was no ‘‘specification of the charge’’ or formal reasons as to why Henderson had been expelled.

Brian Fletcher, who represented the clubs, said they had followed the required process and while that didn’t include a hearing, it was still fair.

Justice Dobson said his role was not to look at the merits of the case, but to ‘‘run the ruler’’ after the event to determine how accurately the club dealt with the situation.

‘‘Provisionally I am very uneasy about the process,’’ Justice Dobson said.

Gaines said the publication of Henderson’s expulsion in the club newsletter brought him ‘‘hurt and embarrassment’’.

Gaines called for arbitration between Henderson and management, and said ultimately Henderson wanted to be reinstated as a member.

‘‘It’s a place where he has purpose, it is his social network, it is a place where he can give to the sport, importantly there are no other feasible options in Marlborough,’’ Gaines said.

He just wanted to ‘‘get on and play snooker and pool’’.

In his submission, Fletcher said a non-member had made a complaint about Henderson which meant they were not required to give him a hearing.

‘‘There was no hearing as such, the fair process is one which doesn’t require a hearing.

‘‘If the club had followed a different process then perhaps the review or complaint would be on that different process.’’

Within the club, there were rules and procedures to deal with issues which arose between two members, he said.

‘‘If a complaint is received by a non-member, it cannot be dealt with it in the same way as if it was a member.’’

Natural justice was met, meaning the principles, procedures, and treatment of Henderson was morally right and fair, Fletcher said.

There was no obligation to meet it by formal means, such as a hearing, he said.

Justice Dobson said that process left ‘‘a member implicated by a non-member’’.

He said he would be reserving his decision.

He acknowledged judicial review could be a ‘‘frustrating process’’ in that the participants would still have to resolve the situation following his decision.

‘‘The time has come for objectivity, to accept that things could be done better on all parts, take a deep breath all of you, whatever my outcome I wish you well in reaching your conclusion.’’