Ho Hoe Theng v Jurong Country Club

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Loo Ngan Chor
• Judgment Date: 18 April 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 113
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 3982 of 2010/C
• Year: 2013
• Published date: 31 May 2013
• Hearing Date: 20 November 2012,18 April 2013,26 September 2012,09 January 2013,25 September 2012,01 February 2013,19 November 2012,21 November 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Adrian Wong& Teo Shu Qiu (M/s Rajah & Tann LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Selvaraj & Ivan Lim (M/s Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 113

District Judge Loo Ngan Chor: Introduction:

The plaintiff joined the defendant, which is a members’ club, on 1st August 1999. The defendant is registered as a society under the Societies Act (Cap 311).

The plaintiff had been involved in an incident at the golf driving range of the defendant on 1st December 2007 during which, the plaintiff maintained, he had been assaulted by another member, Mr Stanley Ang. Mr Angⁱ and the plaintiffⁱⁱ each lodged a complaint against the other on 3rd December 2007.

Arising from this incident, the disciplinary committee (“DC”) of the defendant conducted disciplinary proceedings against both the plaintiff and Mr Ang. The DC decided on 18th February 2008ⁱⁱⁱ to suspend the membership privileges of both the plaintiff and Mr Ang for three months, a decision which was communicated to them by a letter dated 28th February 2008.^iv

The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the outcome and the process and has filed this suit. By this suit, the plaintiff seeks declarations that the defendant acted in breach of contract and or the rules of natural justice in suspending the plaintiff’s membership and that the suspension was invalid and, further or alternatively, damages.

I shall next set out the documentary record related to the process the DC took. The names of the persons involved as described in the complaints are set out within parentheses to facilitate narration because, while their names may not have been immediately known to the writer at the time of the writings, these persons’ identities were not in dispute.

The Facts: The plaintiff’s complaint:

The plaintiff’s complaint^v was that he had arrived at 4.45pm on 1st December 2007 at the driving range of the defendant. He went to the upper deck of the driving range, which was fully occupied. Having identified a golfer (Mr Andrew Tew) who about to finish, he asked to take over the bay. When Mr Tew agreed, he left his golf bag behind Mr Tew’s, which was still in a metal rack. He then stepped into the toilet which was just behind the bay. A minute or two later, when he came out from the toilet, he found a lady (Ms Tay) pouring golf balls into a floor tray. He told Ms Tay that “the bay was taken” upon which Ms Tay apologised and set about removing the golf balls. Ms Tay was the sister-in-law of a member (Mr Stanley Ang), who, with his wife (Ms Lynn Lee) had been using two of the adjacent bays. Mr Ang came over and there was an exchange of words between the two men over whether the plaintiff had in fact reserved the bay as the plaintiff’s golf bag was not in the metal rack. In spite of the plaintiff’s explanation, Mr Ang made “a vulgar sign with his finger, wagging it right in front of my face, used vulgar words, and challenged (the plaintiff) to a fight. I told him to stop pointing his vulgar-signed finger at me. However without warning, he started charging at me and throwing punches at my face, which I fenced (sic) off with my hands. But I fell backwards as a result into the entrance of the female toilet, as his sudden action caught me completely by surprise.”

The plaintiff said that the incident was witnessed by a professional golf player, Mr Mark Bates, who ran a shop in the driving range. Mr Bates had intervened after the two men fell and quelled the exchange. He also believed that the closed-circuit television of the driving range would have captured the incident. The plaintiff consulted a doctor that evening. The plaintiff said that Mr Ang’s behaviour suggested that he had a “mental condition” and asked that Mr Ang’s continued membership be looked into.

Mr Ang’s complaint:

In an email dated 3rd December 2007^vi to Mr Peter Goh (then general manager of the defendant), Mr Ang said that he had been at the range at 4pm with Ms Tay and Ms Lee. As the range was full, the trio occupied two bays. Realising that Mr Tew would be finishing his practice, Ms Tay, “who is new at the range put her golf bag beside (Mr Tew’s) bay close to the next bay”, expecting to use the bay after Mr Tew left. After Mr Tew had vacated the bay, Ms Tay then placed her golf bag in the bay and poured the golf balls on the mat. The plaintiff then “showed up and said he was there first and that he has put his bag behind the bay, while we were there an hour earlier. (Ms Tay) was intimidated and apologise (sic) to him. While Ms Tay wanted to give way to the plaintiff, Mr Ang said that he told the plaintiff that he was not in fact there first to which the plaintiff responded “rudely” and in a “loud tone” that Mr Ang did not know what he was talking about and was “talking cock”. Mr Ang did not wish to argue with the plaintiff, “showed (his) finger and walk (sic) away.” The plaintiff then shouted at Mr Ang and “approached with his face 3 inched (sic) from mine with intention to assault (sic). I pushed him away and he swing (sic) his right hand at me. There was a scuffle and he end (sic) up falling down with me on top of him.” Mr Bates then came along and separated them. Even though the plaintiff turned abusive, Mr Ang walked away. Mr Ang said that his email was “just a report for your information.”

On 16th December 2007, Mr Ang wrote a further email^vii to Mr Goh as well as Mr Mohamad Taha (the defendant’s golf operations manager) in which he referred to his earlier email. He said that he was now “officially (making) a complain (sic) about the incident.” Having discussed with Ms Tay and Ms Lee, he said that the plaintiff had threatened him with the words “watch out and that he would not settle this so easily”, over which he was concerned for the two ladies and himself.

The defendant’s notice of the DC hearing:

By the defendant’s letter dated 24th December 2007, which was signed by Mr Goh, the plaintiff and Mr Ang were informed that the defendant would be investigating the episode in the following terms: “Re: INCIDENT on 1/12/2007 AT DRIVING RANGE It has been brought to our attention that both of you were involved in an incident at the driving range of the Club on 1/12/2007, in which the both of you were involved in a scuffle and have accuse (sic) each other of assault. In accordance with Section 30.6 of the Constitution, we invite both of you to give to the Disciplinary Committee within the next fourteen (14) days any written explanation you may wish to offer in answer. The Disciplinary Committee shall meet on Friday 11/1/2008 at 7.15pm at the Conference Room, 2nd level, Jurong Country Club, 9 Science Road, Singapore 609078 to deliberate the complaints. You are invited to attend the meeting and submit for the Committee’s attention such other factors as you may wish the Committee to consider. Please advise your witnesses, if any, to also attend the meeting and provide the Committee such information as they wish the Committee to consider.”

Mr Ang’s further letter to the defendant:

Mr Ang wrote a further letter dated 8th January 2008^viii in reference to the defendant’s just-mentioned letter and his two emails. In this letter, he added that the plaintiff “threaten (sic) (Dawn) in an intimidating voice that the particular driving range bay was reserved by him. I intervened to explain that we were at the bay an hour earlier and he should not intimidate a new lady golfer.” Mr Ang also added that as the plaintiff charged at him with his face inches from Mr Ang’s, he “pushed him away and saw his right hand swinging towards my face and thus a scuffle took place and he was pushed to the floor in the ladies toilet.” He said that after the scuffle ended, the plaintiff was “still abusive and arrogant” and wanted to know his name and if he was a member. Mr Ang said that he ignored the plaintiff who threatened him “to watch out, this will not stop here.” Mr Ang said that Ms Lee and Ms Tay would be his witnesses and that he had been a member of many years’ standing and had contributed a great deal to the defendant in various capacities.

The defendant’s Constitution:

Rules 28 and 29 of the defendant’s Constitution make provisions for the powers of top management to repose in the General Committee (“GC”). Rule 30 empowers the GC to appoint sub-committees. In particular, Rule 30.4 and 30.8 provide that: “30.4 The General Committee shall have the power to appoint a Disciplinary Committee for such period and on such terms as the General Committee may deem fit to conduct inquiries against Members who act in any way prejudicial to the interest of the Club or its Members or who breach any Rule or Bye-Law of the Club. 30.8 The decision of the Disciplinary Committee shall be deemed to be the decision of the General Committee and no appeal shall lie from it to any other body or to a Court of Law.”^ix

The DC hearings:

The DC met on 11th January 2008, 15th January 2008, 4th February 2008 and 18th February 2008 to deliberate the complaints. These deliberations were minuted by Mr Taha.

The quorum:

The standing DC of the defendant comprised five members. The DC that heard the complaints comprised Mr Naranjan Singh (vice-chairman), Mr Cheong Tuck Meng and Mr David Wee. Two other members, Mr Lim Kah Cheong, the chairman of the standing DC, and Mr Simon Yuen, had withdrawn themselves from participation, as minuted in the DC’s minutes dated 11th January 2008.^x

The first DC hearing:

The plaintiff and Mr Ang separately attended before the DC on 11th January 2008.

When he attended the DC hearing, the plaintiff narrated his version of the incident. The minutes show that the DC asked him certain questions and the plaintiff provided his answers. In response to a question whether the plaintiff had asked golfers at the adjacent bays whether they “were next in line to practice (sic) on this bay,” the plaintiff said he did not. The minutes also set out the plaintiff’s elaboration of the incident, in which he explained how Mr Ang had been the unprovoked aggressor and that his female companions had tried to pacify him. Asked “why he did not give...