Visvasam v Singapore Toddy Tappers' Union

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 26 September 1968
• Neutral Citation: [1968] SGHC 25
• Docket Number: Suit No 2058 of 1964
• Date: 26 September 1968
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1968
• Plaintiff Counsel: YR Jumabhoy (Mallal & Namazie)
• Citation: [1968] SGHC 25
• Defendant Counsel: Lai Kew Chai (Lee & Lee)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Membership,Administrative Law,Whether court could grant relief only after domestic remedies exhausted,Remedies,Natural justice,Nature of power of executive council of trade union to expel member,Extent to which court would examine decision of domestic tribunal,Trade unions,Unincorporated Associations and Trade Unions,Expulsion of member by executive council,Breach of natural justice

The plaintiff`s claim in this case is:

(1) For a declaration that the resolution of the executive council of the defendant union passed on 19 August 1964 purporting to expel the plaintiff from the membership of the defendant union was and is ultra vires on the ground that the same was and is contrary to natural justice, in that the said executive council gave the plaintiff no opportunity of stating his case before them, and the said executive council did not act in the matter of the resolution in a judicial manner.

(2) An injunction restraining the defendants, their officers and servants from acting upon or enforcing the said resolution.

(3) Damages for breach of contract.

On the evidence adduced before me I find that the facts are these. The plaintiff was a toddy tapper and a member of the defendant union (hereinafter referred to as `the union`) until his purported expulsion in August 1964. The union was first registered in 1957 and the plaintiff was the president of the union in 1958 and was again elected president in 1963. He ceased to be president sometime in February 1964. The government of the union and the conduct of its business are vested in the executive council consisting of the president, vice-president, secretary, assistant secretary, treasurer and four members. In May 1963, at the annual general meeting the members decided to buy a building to be used as union premises. In July 1963, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase a house in Kovan Gardens (to which I will hereafter refer to as `the Kovan Gardens property`) from the Ee Finance Co Ltd Prior to entering into the contract the plaintiff together with several other persons called at the office of Messrs Braddell Bros, the solicitors for Ee Finance Co Ltd, in connection with the purchase of the property and they were advised that since the union was not a corporate body the contract should be entered into by the trustees of the union. The plaintiff informed the solicitors that he was the president of the union and that for the time being the contract be entered into by him with Ee Finance Co Ltd and that he would give the names of the trustees when the conveyance was prepared. The house at Kovan Gardens was in the course of being erected and the progress payments of the purchase price were made by the union upon cheques drawn by it.

At a meeting of the executive council held on 14 June 1968 under the chairmanship of the plaintiff, the executive council unanimously approved the payment of an advance of $1,000 for the purchase of the Kovan Gardens property `for the union in the name of the union president, A Visvasam` and `gave permission for the payment of $5,500 for drawing the agreement.` This resolution was passed although under r 13(b) of the union`s rules it was provided that `the three trustees for the time being shall have vested in them all the real and personal estate whatever belonging to the union and they shall deal with it in such way as the executive council may direct.` The plaintiff was not one of the trustees.

Sometime towards the end of 1968 there was some trouble amongst the members of the executive council and four members of the executive council resigned. One of them was P Thangavelu. In January 1964, 57 members of the union sent a petition to the executive council requesting that a general meeting be held to discuss and settle the differences. Amongst the signatories were the four executive council members who had resigned. On 27 January 1964, the plaintiff signed a circular letter addressed to the members informing them of the receipt of the petition and intimating that the remaining members of the executive council would send in their resignations.

In February 1964, a new executive council was elected - V Erulappan, president; K Kanapathy, vice-president; C Mariadas, secretary and six other members. At an extraordinary general meeting held on 24 February 1964 it was resolved that `V Erulappan, K Kanapathy and S Sevapunniam be appointed three trustees of the union under r 13 of the rules of the union and that they shall have vested in them all the real and personal estate of the union and that the union be authorised to purchase the Kovan Gardens property at the price of $23,000 and that the conveyance of the said property be made in favour of the abovenamed three and they be authorised to execute the said conveyance containing certain restrictive covenants mentioned in the said conveyance.`

On 24 February 1964 the plaintiff wrote the following letter to the union`s auditor:

With reference to house property described as 14, Kovan Gardens, I hereby declare that the said property was purchased in my name as per resolutions dated 25 May 1963 of general body of members and resolution committee members dated 14 June 1963. The said property was purchased in my name since the sellers who are also contractors for putting up of building insisted that they would enter into an agreement with an individual and not with the union. It was the view of the committee that the property should be purchased in my name since I was the president of the union at the time of agreement. I further declare that on completion of the agreements dated 14 July 1963 I shall subscribe my signature for transfer of property to the union by Ee Finance Co Ltd the seller.

In March 1964, two reports against the plaintiff were sent to the executive council. The first (exh D3) was from S Govindasamy, a member, dated 17 March 1964. The second (exh D4) was from P Thangavelu, a member of the executive council. Both Govindasamy and Thangavelu asked C Mariadas, the secretary, to write the reports for them. Later another report against the plaintiff (exh D5) was received by the executive council and it was from Vaithinasamy, a member.

On 9 June 1964 the secretary wrote the following letter to the plaintiff with reference to the Kovan Gardens property:

During your tenure of office as president of this union, the above mentioned house was purchased by the committee of this union with the union funds for use as union premises. There were trustees of the union in existence at that time and it would have been the proper and constitutional procedure to have the said house conveyed to the trustees jointly to be held by them in trust for the union.

On your instructions however, the said house was put in your name and the trustees were apparently completely ignored. This was a most irregular act, especially as you have never since then executed any declaration of trust or other similar document in respect of the house to indicate that you are holding it on behalf of the union.

The present committee have called upon you several times already to transfer the said house into the names of union officials as you are no more a member of the executive committee of this union but you have persistently refused to comply with such requests.

I now hereby formally request and require you to convey the said house forthwith into the names of the following persons:

1 V Erulappan

(2) S Sevapunniam

(3) K Kanapathy

who are the present trustees of this union and in whom according to union rules all the landed property of the union must be vested.

If you fail to comply with the foregoing request within seven (7) days of the date of the receipt by you of this letter, legal proceedings may be taken against you without further notice to you and in such proceedings I shall ask the court to make an order that you pay the costs of the said proceedings.

On 21 June 1964, the plaintiff sent the following reply:

With reference to your letter dated 9th instant, concerning the transfer of the union premises to the trustees of the union.

As you know that we had a personal conversation on the 15th after receiving your above-mentioned letter regarding the date of going to the registrar, you told me that you will be informing me the date later.

Since up to the date of writing this letter I received no information from you regarding the above-mentioned matter, as the date expires on 22 as mentioned in your letter I have to bring this matter to your consideration to inform me the date of going to the registrar.

I hereby await to transfer the union premises to the trustees of the union as mentioned in your letter according to the rules and regulations of the union.

Awaiting to hear from you.

On 27 June 1964 the plaintiff wrote the following letter to Messrs Braddell Bros with reference to the Kovan Gardens property:

Sometime last year the Singapore Toddy Tappers` Union purchased the above mentioned property from the Ee Finance Co Ltd. You were the solicitors for both the vendor and the purchaser.

I was the president of the union at that time and the arrangement was then for the property to be conveyed into my name. I am no longer the president now the property should be conveyed into the names of the current trustees of the Singapore Toddy Tappers` Union.

The present secretary of the union, one C Mariadas of 876 Yio Chu Kang Road, Singapore will call on you to give you the names of the said trustees and any other information you may require.

Will you kindly prepare the necessary conveyance in favour of the said trustees and have same executed as soon as possible by the Ee Finance Co Ltd? If there is any document to be signed by me to finalise matters please let me know and I shall do whatever in necessary.

The said C Mariadas will make all necessary payments.

On the same day the plaintiff wrote a further letter to Braddell Bros acknowledging that the contract with Ee Finance Co Ltd were entered by him for and on behalf of the union and that all the progress payments so far made to the Ee Finance Co Ltd by him were out of money belonging to the union and authorised Braddell Bros to convey the property to the three trustees which he named.

On 11 July 1964, the executive council received another report against the plaintiff (exh...