Vibert v Sun Bowls Club and Ors [2018] JRC 142 (07 August 2018)

Vibert v Sun Bowls Club and Ors [2018] JRC 142 (07 August 2018)

The requirement of natural justice and procedural fairness does not apply to applications for new membership of private clubs unless the decision affects the applicant's livelihood or involves unlawful discrimination. Mr Vibert had resigned from the First Defendant and was applying as a new member; thus, the clubs owed him no duty to provide reasons or a hearing. Article 6 ECHR does not apply as no civil right was determined. Summary judgment was properly granted as there was no case for the Defendants to answer.

Citation
[2018] JRC 142
Parties
Appellant: Ted Vibert; First Defendant: Sun Bowls Club; Second Defendant: St Saviour's Bowling Club; Third Defendant: Jersey Bowling Club; Fourth Defendant: St Brelade's Bowling Club
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Natural Justice, Membership Rights, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Club Law Summary Judgment Natural Justice Membership Rights Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted Vibert

Appellant

Sun Bowls Club

First Defendant

St Saviour's Bowling Club

Second Defendant

Jersey Bowling Club

Third Defendant

St Brelade's Bowling Club

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a private club owe a duty of natural justice or procedural fairness to applicants for membership?
  2. 2 Is refusal to renew membership equivalent to expulsion, triggering natural justice protections?
  3. 3 Does Article 6 ECHR apply to club membership decisions?

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of natural justice and procedural fairness does not apply to applications for new membership of private clubs unless the decision affects the applicant's livelihood or involves unlawful discrimination. Mr Vibert had resigned from the First Defendant and was applying as a new member; thus, the clubs owed him no duty to provide reasons or a hearing. Article 6 ECHR does not apply as no civil right was determined. Summary judgment was properly granted as there was no case for the Defendants to answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Defendants
  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed