Tan Wee Tin and others v Singapore Swimming Club
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Justin Yeo AR |
Judgment Date | 23 November 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHCR 21 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 598 of 2017 (Summons No 2990 of 2017) |
Year | 2017 |
Published date | 30 November 2017 |
Hearing Date | 23 November 2017,19 September 2017,05 September 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Plaintiffs in person |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Chang Man Phing, Mr Aloysius Tan and Ms Dynyse Loh (WongPartnership LLP) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Stay of Proceedings,Administrative Law,Disciplinary Proceedings,Unincorporated Associations and Trade Unions,Disputes,Legal Proceedings |
Citation | [2017] SGHCR 21 |
Mr Tan Wee Tin (“the 1
This is the Defendant’s application to stay the proceedings commenced by the Plaintiffs in Originating Summons No 598 of 2017 (“OS 598”). The basis for seeking the stay is that the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust internal appellate processes and to comply with the dispute resolution clause stipulated under the Rules of the Singapore Swimming Club (February 2013 reprint) (“the Club’s Rules”).
Background facts On 21 November 2011, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in
On 14 December 2011, the 2011 MC convened a special confidential MC meeting, at which the 1
On 19 December 2011, the 2011 MC convened another special confidential MC meeting, at which all the Plaintiffs were present, and again reaffirmed the Indemnity Resolution.
On 18 January 2012, the 2011 MC convened an urgent special confidential meeting, at which all the Plaintiffs were present. The meeting was chaired by Mr Koh. At this meeting, the 2011 MC unanimously reaffirmed the validity of the Indemnity Resolution and its applicability to Mr Koh. The reaffirmation on three separate occasions allowed further payments to be made, pursuant to the Indemnity Resolution, towards Mr Koh’s legal expenses in the proceedings relating to
On 4 March 2012, the Defendant convened an extraordinary general meeting of the members. At the meeting, the members resolved to remove Mr Koh as President of the Defendant’s MC, and for the Defendant to stop making further payments towards Mr Koh’s Legal Expenses.
On 28 March 2012, Mr Koh commenced proceedings by way of Originating Summons No 309 of 2012 (“OS 309”) against the Defendant, seeking declarations that the Indemnity Resolution was valid and binding on the Defendant, and that the resolution passed on 4 March 2012 was null and void.
The 2012 AGMAt the Annual General Meeting held on 27 May 2012 (“the 2012 AGM”), a member of the Defendant sought the passage of a “motion of censure and no confidence” against the 2011 MC. This was in relation to the cheque of $1,021,793.48 (“the $1m Cheque”) which was used for making payments towards Mr Koh’s Legal Expenses.
In particular, the member formally raised the following matters in relation to the $1m Cheque:
[emphasis in original]
Although the 1
The “motion of censure and no confidence” was subsequently amended to be directed only against two persons:
The motion was passed at the 2012 AGM.
Legal Proceedings relating to the Indemnity ResolutionAfter the new MC was elected at the 2012 AGM, the three reaffirmations of the Indemnity Resolution were discovered.
On 18 June 2012, the Defendant commenced proceedings, by way of Suit No 510 of 2012 (“Suit 510”), to recover the moneys which the Defendant had paid towards Mr Koh’s Legal Expenses. OS 309 and Suit 510 were subsequently consolidated as Suit No 634 of 2012 (“Suit 634”).
The decision in Suit 634 was eventually appealed to the Court of Appeal, and on 26 April 2016, the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in
Less than a month after
The Complaint was referred to the Disciplinary Panel convened under the Club’s Rules. Six charges were brought against each member of the 2011 MC (“the Charges”). The Charges related to the 2011 MC’s reaffirmation of the Indemnity Resolution, and specifically, the sums of money that were paid out on various dates, as follows:
The Disciplinary Panel Chairman convened a Disciplinary Committee (comprising three senior legal practitioners) to hear the Complaint. The Plaintiffs did not object to the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee. The 1
Under the Club’s Rules, a member who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Disciplinary Committee may appeal to the Appeals Board (comprising five senior legal practitioners), within 14 days of being notified of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Each of the Plaintiffs informed the Defendant that they would be appealing against the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.
On 22 March 2017, the Defendant’s general manager, Mr Alfred Poon (“Mr Poon”), wrote to the Plaintiffs to inform them of their Appeals Board hearings. The Plaintiffs sought to obtain documents and information from the Defendant, such as the Disciplinary Committee’s grounds of decision, and details regarding the Appeals Board members. The Defendant provided the latter, but not the former, as this was not required under the Club’s Rules and Bye-Laws, and the Defendant’s practice was not to give such grounds. In any event, the Appeals Board would hear the matter
On 25 May 2017, Mr Poon wrote to the Plaintiffs to inform them that the Appeals Board had dismissed their appeals. Mr Poon also informed the Plaintiffs that pursuant to Rules 14(f) of the Club’s Rules (“Rule 14(f)”) and Bye-Law 19(j) of the Club’s Bye-Laws (“Bye-Law 19(j)”), they may, within 21 days, further appeal the Appeals Board’s decision to a meeting of general members. The Plaintiffs had until 15 June 2017 (
To continue reading
Request your trial