“[20] If the relationships between members are regulated by contract, and the powers of the committee, acting on behalf of the members as a whole, are limited by the terms of that contract, it follows that any member of the club who feels aggrieved by the actions of the committee, at least insofar as they concern him, may have recourse to the courts. His complaint would be that the members, through the committee, were in breach of contract; or, that the committee was exceeding the powers conferred upon it by the membership; or, possibly, that the committee was acting in breach of express or implied terms of the contract under which it was given its powers. … ” its powers. … ” 27. Lord Glennie went on to rule later in the same paragraph that: “I would also prefer to regard the procedural requirements imposed upon the decision making process in the interests of fairness as being based, in the absence of clear rules agreed by the members, upon implied terms of the contract between the members rather than as being imposed by the common law. In this way, so it seems to me, the requirement for "fairness", and the level at which the procedural requirements necessary to ensure that fairness are pitched, can more readily be attuned to the precise relationship between the members, which may well differ from club to club and according to the particular facts of any given situation.”
“As Lord Reed points out, because judicial review in England is appropriate only for matters of public law, a dispute of this type in England would come before the courts there by way of ordinary action. While this has no practical consequence in terms of the applicable principles, it does perhaps tend to reinforce the essentially contractual nature of the issues with which the court is concerned.”
“[23] The jurisdiction or power of the committee in disciplinary matters is derived from the contract entered into between the members inter se on terms of the constitution and rules of the club. Rule 9 of the club's constitution and rules is, on its face, exceptionally wide ranging. There are two distinct circumstances in which the committee may exercise the power to discipline a member. The first concerns a member's conduct. If that conduct "appears to (the committee) to endanger the character, interests or good order of the club", the committee may vote to suspend or expel. Once relevant conduct is identified, that is to say conduct which is within the intended scope of the rule, then the question of whether it does or does not have this effect is for the committee. The court will not interfere with such an assessment except on grounds such as mala fides or manifest absurdity: see Dawkins v Antrobus at pp 629, 630 and 634; Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain at(1952) 2 QB, pp 338 -339, 343 and 350. But the question of whether the conduct is relevant conduct at all is a jurisdictional or threshold question and is one for the court; because if it is not relevant conduct the committee has no business considering it at all in this context. The second circumstance in which the committee is entitled to exercise its disciplinary powers is where a member acts "in breach of the Constitution, Bye-laws or Rules of the club or decision of the club in General Meeting". This again raises a jurisdictional or threshold question. If the member acts in breach, the committee has power to suspend or expel him. If he does not act in breach, the committee has no such power. Whether the particular action is or is not a breach within the terms of the rule is a matter ultimately for the court.”
“In the present case the petitioners were behaving properly and within their rights under the planning system. They objected to the proposal. They had a legitimate interest in doing so. There was nothing vindictive or irrational about their opposition. It was not done to spite the club. It was done with the aim not of impeding the club's development but of protecting their own rights and interests. In other words, as is conceded, the conduct and acts of the petitioners were in themselves entirely unobjectionable. They only became the focus of objection from the committee because the proposal to which the petitioners took exception itself came from the club. But that is not enough, in my opinion, to render the petitioners' conduct and acts susceptible to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the committee. [26] This conclusion is sufficient to justify reduction of the decision of the committee to expel the petitioners. But I should deal briefly with the other matters raised in case they should become relevant in the future.”
“I think it is my duty to construe the rules fairly and in the same way as I should any other contract and I have no right to give the words other than their ordinary meaning, or to construe the rules otherwise than in their ordinary sense.”
“As is common in club cases, there are many obscurities and uncertainties, and some difficulty in the law. In such cases, the court usually has to take a broad sword to the problems, and eschew an unduly meticulous examination of the rules and resolutions. I am not, of course, saying that these should be ignored; but usually there is a considerable degree of informality in the conduct of the affairs of such clubs, and I think that the courts have to be ready to allow general concepts of reasonableness, fairness and common sense to be given more than their usual weight when confronted by claims to the contrary which appear to be based on any strict interpretation and rigid application of the letter of the rules. In other words, allowance must be made for some play in the joints.”
“28. There are, in my judgment, two separate questions: i) What do the rules require? ii) What is the effect of non-compliance with those requirements? 29. The answer to the first of these questions is a question of interpretation of the rules. In answering that question, the rules are to be interpreted in the same way as any other contract, making due allowance for the fact that the rules are intended to be operated by non-lawyers. In our case, with one possible exception (to which I will return) there is no real doubt about what the rules mean. The answer to the second question involves a rather different inquiry. The point was well-made by Sir Stanley Burnton in Newbold v The Coal Board[2013] EWCA Civ 584 , which concerned the validity of notices of subsidence damage. He said at [70]: “In all cases, one must first construe the statutory or contractual requirement in question. It may require strict compliance with a requirement as a condition of its validity. In Mannai at 776B Lord Hoffmann gave the example of the lease requiring notice to be given on blue paper: a notice given on pink paper would be ineffective. Against that, on its true construction a statutory requirement may be satisfied by what is referred to as adequate compliance. Finally, it may be that even non-compliance with a requirement is not fatal. In all such cases, it is necessary to consider the words of that statute or contract, in the light of its subject matter, the background, the purpose of the requirement, if that is known or determined, and the actual or possible effect of non-compliance on the parties. We assume that Parliament in the case of legislation, and the parties in the case of a contractual requirement, would have intended a sensible, and in the case of a contract, commercial result.” 30. In my judgment the observations of Megarry V-C in Re GKN Bolts & Nuts are, on analysis, directed to the second question.” “In all cases, one must first construe the statutory or contractual requirement in question. It may require strict compliance with a requirement as a condition of its validity. In Mannai at 776B Lord Hoffmann gave the example of the lease requiring notice to be given on blue paper: a notice given on pink paper would be ineffective. Against that, on its true construction a statutory requirement may be satisfied by what is referred to as adequate compliance. Finally, it may be that even non-compliance with a requirement is not fatal. In all such cases, it is necessary to consider the words of that statute or contract, in the light of its subject matter, the background, the purpose of the requirement, if that is known or determined, and the actual or possible effect of non-compliance on the parties. We assume that Parliament in the case of legislation, and the parties in the case of a contractual requirement, would have intended a sensible, and in the case of a contract, commercial result.”
“19. The nature of the relationship between an unincorporated association and its individual members is governed by the law of contract:— (a) The contract is found in the rules to which each member adheres when he or she joins the association: see Choudhry v Tresiman[2003] EWHC 1203 (Comm) at [38] per Stanley Burnton J. (b) A person who joins an unincorporated association thus does so on the basis that he or she will be bound by its constitution and rules, if accessible, whether or not he or she has seen them and irrespective of whether he or she is actually aware of particular provisions: John v Rees[1970] 1 Ch 345 at 388D – E; Raggett v Musgrave (1827) 2 C & P 556 at 557. (c) The constitution and rules of an unincorporated association can only be altered in accordance with the constitution and rules themselves: Dawkins v Antrobus(1881) 17 Ch D 615 at 621, Harington v Sendall[1903] 1 Ch 921 at 926 and Re Tobacco Trade Benevolent Society (Sinclair v Finlay)[1958] 3 All ER 353 at 355B – C. 20. Because the nature of the relationship between an unincorporated association and its individual members is governed by the law of contract the proper approach to the interpretation of the constitution and rules is governed by the legal principles as to the interpretation of contracts, and is a matter of law for the court. The approach is thus that set out in cases such as Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd[2009] UKHL 38 ,[2009] 1 AC 1101 at [14], Arnold v Britton[2015] UKSC 36 ,[2015] AC 1619 at [15] and [18], and Marks and Spencer PLC v BNP Paribas Security Serdeputys Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd[2015] UKSC 72 ,[2015] 3 WLR 1843 . The intentions of the parties to a contract will be ascertained by reference to what a reasonable person having all the background which would have been available to the parties would have understood the language in the contract to mean, and it does so by focusing on the meaning of the words in the contract in their documentary and factual context.”
“If it is part of a rational decision-making process exclude to extraneous considerations, it is in my view also part of a rational decision making process to take into account those considerations which are obviously relevant to the decision in question. It is of the essence of "Wednesbury reasonableness" … review to consider the rationality of the decision-making process rather than to concentrate on the outcome. Concentrating on the outcome runs the risk that the court will substitute its own decision for that of the primary decision-maker. 30 It is clear, however, that unless the court can imply a term that the outcome be objectively reasonable-for example, a reasonable price or a reasonable term, the court will only imply a term that the decision-making process be lawful and rational in the public law sense, that the decision is made rationally (as well as in good faith) and consistently with its contractual purpose. For my part, I would include both limbs of the Wednesbury formulation in the rationality test.”
“It appears to me that one reason why the authorities on natural justice have been found difficult to reconcile is that insufficient attention has been paid to the great difference between various kinds of cases in which it has been sought to apply the principle. What a minister ought to do in considering objections to a scheme may be very different from what a watch committee ought to do in considering whether to dismiss a chief constable.” “Then there was considerable argument whether in the result the watch committee's decision is void or merely voidable. Time and again in the cases I have cited it has been stated that a decision given without regard to the principles of natural justice is void, and that was expressly decided in Wood v. Woad. I see no reason to doubt these authorities. The body with the power to decide cannot lawfully proceed to make a decision until it has afforded to the person affected a proper opportunity to state his case.”
“At this stage I venture to make two points. First, since there is no question here of bias or any suggestion that the watch committee acted otherwise than entirely in good faith, the only principle of natural justice here involved is that enshrined in the Latin phrase "audi alteram partem." Second, I for my part conclude that if the principles of natural justice can properly be invoked in this case and if it should be held that such principles were not observed, then the decision of the watch committee was not void but voidable only. Upon this second question (whether the decision afterwards impugned can be said to be void or voidable only) the cases provide, as I think, no certain answer; nor have I found one in the textbooks. Indeed, in the vast majority of circumstances, it does not in the end matter whether the decision challenged is void or only voidable; for if the court does decide to quash a decision or otherwise set it aside, then the effect is in general the same whether such decision be considered as void or only voidable. For my part, however, I have come to the conclusion that in a case where a body is acting within its jurisdiction but of which the court will say that it has failed properly to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, then the decision is only voidable and cannot properly be described as a nullity.” 38. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest ruled as follows at p 124: “It is to be remembered also that in the case of the appellant his summary dismissal involved the loss of valuable pension rights. Property rights were at stake in Local Government Board v. Arlidge. Lord Haldane there expressed his approval of the view indicated by Lord Loreburn in Board of Education v. Rice that an administrative body to which the decision of a question in dispute between parties has been entrusted must act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides. Lord Parmoor said that whether in that case the order of the Local Government Board was to be regarded as of an administrative or of a quasi-judicial character if the order affected the rights and property of the respondent he was entitled to have the matter determined "in a judicial spirit, in accordance with "the principles of substantial justice." A right to be heard before property rights were affected was upheld in the circumstances applying in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, in Hopkins v. Smethwick Local Board, and in Urban Housing Co. Ltd. v. Oxford Corporation. Similarly, a right to be heard in regard to removal from an office was recognised in Osgood v. Nelson, in Ex parte Ramshay and in Rex v. Gaskin. So also it has been recognised that expulsion from a Club must not take place in disregard either of the rules of the Club or of the rules of natural justice. (The cases of Fisher v. Keane and Dawkins v. Antrobus may be mentioned as typical examples.) Being of the view that, even if there had been no applicable regulations, a decision to dismiss the appellant for neglect of duty ought only to have been taken in the exercise of a quasi-judicial function which demanded an observance of the rules of natural justice—I entertain no doubt that such rules were not observed.”
“No one, I think, disputes that three features of natural justice stand out—(1) the right to be heard by an unbiased tribunal; (2) the right to have notice of charges of misconduct; (3) the right to be heard in answer to those charges.”
“In view of the very common practice of including rules by which the committee may expel members in the rules of Clubs, I think it is desirable that it should be clearly understood that this Court is not a Court of Appeal from the decisions of committees of Clubs, provided the committees are properly constituted and properly summoned, and deal with the matter in a way not contrary to the principles of natural justice. And I say that because counsel for the plaintiff has said that she has brought this action to clear her character. We know nothing about the lady's character, and have no intention to clear or to express any opinion about it. All we know is, that she has made a charge against a fellow member which turns out to be groundless. Except for that we know nothing about the lady, or whether her character is clear or not. The only point that comes before us is, Was the committee properly constituted, properly summoned, and is there anything contrary to the principles of natural justice in the proceedings?”
“…The test for apparent bias is not in doubt. It is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the decision-maker was biased, would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased: Porter v Magill[2001] UKHL 67 ,[2002] 2 AC 357 para 103. 17. …As the Court of Appeal said in In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2)[2001] 1 WLR 701 para 37: “Bias is an attitude of mind which prevents the judge from making an objective determination of the issues that he has to resolve. A judge may be biased because he has reason to prefer one outcome of the case to another. He may be biased because he has reason to favour one party rather than another. He may be biased not in favour of one outcome of the dispute but because of a prejudice in favour of or against a particular witness which prevents an impartial assessment of the evidence of that witness. Bias can come in many forms. It may consist of irrational prejudice or it may arise from particular circumstances which, for logical reasons, predispose a judge towards a particular view of the evidence or issues before him." 18. The circumstances giving rise to a real possibility of bias are many. In Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd[2000] QB 451 at para 25, the Court of Appeal made some observations about the factors which may or may not give rise to a real danger of bias, emphasising that everything would depend on the facts. It is true that the court was considering bias in the context of the test of "real danger of bias" which had been propounded by the House of Lords in R v Gough[1993] AC 646 , rather than the later fair-minded and informed observer test approved in Porter v Magill. But the later test was described by Lord Hope in Porter as no more than a "modest adjustment" of the test in Gough. Moreover, in Locabail (para 17) the court said that in the overwhelming majority of cases the application of the real danger or possibility test and the reasonable suspicion or apprehension test (effectively that approved in Porter) would yield the same result. It seems to me, therefore, that the value of the guidance given in Locabail remains undimmed. It is important to emphasise, however, that it should be treated as no more than guidance: it should not be treated as if it were a statute. The court said: “25. It would be dangerous and futile to attempt to define or list the factors which may or may not give rise to a real danger of bias. Everything will depend on the facts, which may include the nature of the issue to be decided. We cannot, however, conceive of circumstances in which an objection could be soundly based on the religion, ethnic or national origin, gender, age class, means or sexual orientation of the judge. Nor, at any rate ordinarily, could an objection be soundly based on the judge's social or educational or service or employment background or history, nor that of any member of the judge's family; or previous political associations; or membership of social or sporting or charitable bodies; or Masonic associations; or previous judicial decisions; or extra-curricular utterances (whether in textbooks, lectures, speeches, articles, interviews, reports or responses to consultation papers); or previous receipt of instructions to act for or against any party, solicitor or advocate engaged in a case before him; or membership of the same Inn, circuit local Law Society or chambers (see K.F.T.C.J.C. v Jcori Estero S.p.A. (Court of Appeal of Paris,28 June 1991 , International Arbitration Report, vol. 6, 8/9 I)). By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity between the judge and any member of the public involved in the case; or if the judge were closely acquainted with any member of the public involved in the case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could be significant in the decision of the case; or if, in a case where the credibility of an individual were an issue to be decided by the judge, he had in a previous case rejected the evidence of that person in such outspoken terms as to throw doubt on his ability to approach such person's evidence with an open mind on any later occasion; or if on any question at issue in the proceedings before him the judge had expressed views, particularly in the course of the hearing, in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an objective judicial mind (see Vakauta v Kelly(1989) 167 CLR 568 ); or if, for any other reason, there were real ground for doubting the ability of the judge to ignore extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections and bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him. The mere fact that a judge, earlier in the same case or in a previous case, had commented adversely on a party or witness, or found the evidence of a party or witness to be unreliable, would not without more found a sustainable objection. In most cases, we think, the answer, one way or the other, will be obvious. But if in any case there is real ground for doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favour of recusal. We repeat: every application must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. The greater the passage of time between the event relied on as showing a danger of bias and the case in which the objection is raised, the weaker (other things being equal) the objection will be.””
“3F. Eligible travellers: UK clinical exemption conditions P meets the conditions of this regulation if P— (a) has been advised by a registered medical practitioner that for clinical reasons P should not be vaccinated with an authorised vaccine; (b) is able to provide proof of that advice through the NHS COVID pass if required by an immigration officer or the operator of the relevant service on which P travels to England; and (c) has declared on the Passenger Locator Form that P meets the COVID-19 vaccination eligibility criteria.”
“I mentioned this while we were speaking, but I was very troubled to learn of your circumstances and subsequent presentation at the Club. You should not have attended the Council meeting in person yesterday. Especially given there was a Zoom option. … Not only were you technically breaking the law by not self-isolating upon your return to England on the basis of your Covid-19 status, but much worse than that, you potentially put the health of other Council members at risk, as you represent a higher risk of transmission on the basis of your status. In addition, you have very recently returned from travelling, which is a higher risk activity for transmission. You also appeared to have some cold-like symptoms, and implied that you hadn’t yet taken a test. … At the very minimum I think it was disrespectful to other Council members, staff and other members in the Club, and also showed a disregard for the health and wellbeing of others. I don’t feel how you behaved was in keeping with our code of conduct. Before I decide what to do next, I would like you to reassure me that there won’t be a repeat performance of this in future i.e. that you would follow the rules set out in government guidance and not attend a Council meeting should one fall in a period during which you are meant to be self-isolating. I cannot overstate how important it is that we all take this seriously, especially as we enter flu season and what is likely to be another difficult period for the NHS.”
“I am not a murderer, I am not a thief, but Phoebe for some reason thinks I should resign. And I said fine I'm going to speak to Katherine. And she says I should say it's for personal reasons. I'm not gonna say its for personal reasons. I'm gonna just tell her honestly I'm not announcing to the whole world, it's really not a big deal. I'm taking the test and making sure I'm COVID-free obviously obeying the rulesobviously, now that she's told me and I am going to speak to Katherine, because if she thinks I should resign. I will resign…” (My italics). RB said she personally did not think the Claimant should resign. But then RB did not know that the Claimant had returned to the Club the very next day. This exchange then took place: “Ruth Barry: And, and I also think you have to be open. Gina, Just out of respect for any other council member, you have to be open. Because if you put people's lives at risk because we were for 2 hours in the Sun Room. Gina Mok: That is absolutely fine. I am going to be honest”
“And my instinct is, and I'm very sorry to say it but I think I think it probably is the right thing to do because knowing Phoebe the way I do and I don't know her that well. Like if she's saying you should resign and you don't. She's probably going to make a complaint”
“I'm not going to… look I am not saying. Either way, look, I broke the rules and not trying to evade responsibility at all. I just want to be really honest about.”
“This is your decision, this is not, I cannot make this for you. And neither can Phoebe so you need to decide what you want. If you're asking my opinion, my advice, and I haven't had a huge amount of time to think about this. And also this is not my area of expertise. But Phoebe works with the Department of Health. And she writes policy on this. So this is absolutely her own expertise. And my instinct is that coming to the Club, exposing people to this is really serious breach of code of conduct. To be perfectly frank, I don't even think even think this is just about a Council thing. Theoretically, and I'm not saying that they should happen or will happen. Theoretically, if somebody wanted to throw the book at you, they should suggest for example as a member that you shouldn't even be a member for doing this.”
“KOF: I mean, are you obviously since you spoke to Phoebe last night and she said to you that you needed to isolate. I presume since you got home last night you haven't left the house. You've been at home the whole time. Gina Mok: Well I've had to go out and things anyways Katherine O'Flynn: Have you been out, have you been to the Club? today? Gina Mok: I may have kind of stopped by Katherine O'Flynn: Oh no Gina that's really bad. So after Phoebe said to you last night, you need to go home and isolate for 10 days you came back to the Club. That's really bad Gina? Oh my God why don't you have an appointment or something? Gina Mok: Yeah, I didn't want to cancel this last minute. I didn't really want to we agreed in advance Katherine O'Flynn: Really Gina? it just gets really bad. It just gets worse and worse. Well, I to say that, you've been to Bulgaria a quite few times and the rules have just been changed, that on its own, maybe you can convince everyone.”
“Gina Mok: Ok fine. Let me think about it. I am pretty laid back about the whole thing. And I also wanted to make it clear that also, I was just thinking that we made so much progress. And pretty much everything that I wanted to see has been has happened. Katherine O'Flynn: Yeah. Yeah. Gina Mok: Even if I even really like at peace, because I saw the budget, I saw the capex, I can understand why the Club spends the money and get the answers I wanted Katherine O'Flynn: Well I feel that you've achieved a lot, in particular with all the governance stuff which was really effective and essential, especially on how that Complaints Process was unfair in the way that it was written in the past, without your contribution. I think we just got something that I'm not sure it is perfect, but I think it's a lot further than it used to be. Gina Mok: Yea I am pretty happy, I just thinking that if yesterday was my last council meeting, I would have been good. I just thought, okay, I get a lot of answers that I didn't understand when I was a Club member. And to be honest I have been..it's a lot of work and I am busy and I did make time and maybe a little bit over zealous, in trying to attend the meetings, every single one. And being able to meet the members. Overzealous about it to extend the carelessness,”
“Katherine O'Flynn: I didn't disapprove of you Gina, but I do feel that you've made quote a serious a mistake. And my instinct is, I'm saying this to you as a friend. If, for example, Phoebe makes a complaint, and if I have to sit in a council meeting, and discuss it with other counsellors, and it goes through, I don't think it will be a favourable outcome for you. Marsha is high risk. And know nervous about COVID. Phoebe, clearly, because of her professional responsibility, it has to take a hardline, Jason is high risk, he's emailed me before today, I'm high risk. And I'm quite nervous about all of this. I don't know about Fraser's status, Sid is a GP, and he'd be likely to take a very dim view of this for not following the rules, which are designed to keep people safe. So I think if it came to a vote, I don't think it'd be a favourable outcome for you.”
“When I initially spoke with Phoebe it is true that I wasn't aware of the rule changes. But I called my GP and NHS and it turns out that I was listed as exempt and do qualify for the Covid Pass and that I just needed to ask for my records to be updated.” (My emphasis). This was a quite different explanation from her explanation earlier in the day to DH. The Claimant never produced any evidence to KOF or the Club to support the assertion that either her GP or the NHS had ever “listed” her as exempt and that she just needed her records “updated”
“As discussed, the matter will now be referred to Council. We agreed on our call that you will send a written statement to me by the 23rd which will be submitted to Council for their discussion along with the complaint. I also advised that you can make a verbal statement to Council as well if you wish.”
“20. Gina’s complaint summarizes the call we had on November 11th, and that summary is incorrect. She states that I accepted she “had not breached any rules.”
“4. The next day I called 119 the NHS Covid-19 Helpline and my GP to check my records and confirm my status. The NHS confirmed that I qualified for a Covid Pass on account of a Medical exemption. However, for a technical reason the records had not been linked to the NHS App which is managed by a separate team and therefore the Covid Pass was not yet accessible. 5. On the same day, I received the Day 2 Test results which were negative. I exercised my judgement and went about my day as previously planned, including a stop at the Club, given that, as above, I was exempt from quarantining.”
“The next day I called the NHS Helpline and my GP to clarify this point, and they confirmed that I was already exempt”
“I had a cold and took extra precaution by announcing that I had a cold and sitting away from vulnerable Council Members and not shaking hands because I did not want to even pass a cold. My GP has informed me that it is not possible to both have a cold and suffer from Covid because the disease pathology is such that one virus or the other takes over the body but not both.”
“During the Council meeting of November 30th you were provided the opportunity to make a verbal response to the complaint. Council members listened carefully and were also able to ask you questions which you kindly responded to. Following this you left the meeting whilst Council discussed and voted on the matter. Whilst those discussions were ongoing you also supplied, via email to Council members, your late written response to the complaint. Council has considered the complaint and what you have said about it and concluded that you did not comply with the rules for travellers from Bulgaria entering the UK in October. Council understand that you arrived in the UK on October 25th (day 0) and that you visited the Club on October 26th and 27th (day 1 and day 2.). It is Council's understanding that on these two dates you should have been quarantining and that you were not exempt from that requirement. In an email exchange with David Herbert on November 8th you stated that you commenced the process of applying for exemption status after Phoebe pointed out that you were not complying with the Covid rules. "After I spoke to Miss Topping, I called the NHS Hotline and my GP" and later in the same email "I further had a conversation with my GP about the medical reasons why I have not been able to take the vaccine and I do qualify for a Covid Pass." During a subsequent telephone conversation with Katherine, you stated that you had only just learnt you could be exempt and were going through the process of applying for exemption status. You have told Council that you have now been granted exemption status although you have not provided evidence of this. Council have concluded that as you were not exempt on October 26th and 27th when visiting the Club,you did break the Covid rules that were in effect at that time. It is also of note that the government advice in October, and still in place now, is that regardless of an exemption, anyone with symptoms of Covid-19 should self-isolate. On the day of the meeting on October 29th you attended the Club with what you have described yourself as a cold, which other Councillors observed included a cough, a known feature of Covid-19. Given your recent travel and symptoms it should have been clear to you that you presented a heightened risk to others. Therefore, this emails informs you that following Council discussion and votes on the matter the complaint against you has been upheld and the Council has decided to expel you from membership of the Club under Rule 11.2 of the Club's Rules. That decision was taken on the basis that you have behaved in a manner that is injurious to the character, reputation and/or interests of the Club and that the offence is sufficient to warrant your immediate expulsion. In reaching its decision the Council took account of your position as a member of Council and the responsibilities to the Club that such a position entails.”
“You can make a formal complaint in writing by email or post. You can send an email to secretary@lansdowneClub.com or in writing to the Club CEO & Secretary, The Lansdowne Club, 9 Fitzmaurice Place, Mayfair, London W1J 5JD.”
“Whilst I appreciate that Gina has not been caught breaking the law, we as a Club are now aware that the law has been knowingly broken by her and the Club must now carefully consider what action to take.”
“behaves within or outside of the Club in a manner which, in the opinion of Council, is injurious to the character, reputation or interests of the Club, or commit any infraction of the Rules of the Club,”
“7.4. The accused member shall be provided the opportunity to make representations to the Council in writing or orally.”
“If a member of Council’s interest or duty cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest or a conflict of duties with or in respect of the Association, he or she is entitled to participate in the decision-making process, to be counted in the quorum and to vote in relation to the matter.”
“an Unnecessary and Unjustified escalation of hostility” by the Club(the capitals were included by the Claimant). The Claimant explained how she came to make the criticised mobile phone call at reception and rejected being “behind” the Covid screen protecting reception desk when she made it. She asserted that she did not know she could not make calls in the reception area (which is not how I read the Bye-laws about mobile phone use at the Club). The Claimant complained about the CEO’s handling of the Club’s concern about her drinks email thus: “I object to both the manner and the action taken by the Interim CEO. The manner in which he approached me was accusatory and intimidating.”
“7.21 Bias Bias is an attitude or point of view that colours one's judgment. It is a predisposition to see things or people in a certain way and it often entails prejudice. The question arises whether those members who comprise the tribunal are disqualified from sitting on the case.44 The sitting test now favoured by the courts is whether 'the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias'.45 In Clubs a member of the Committee might well be acquainted with the accused person. Thus the member who is a close friend of the accused should not think it proper to sit if a quorum can be formed without him.46 On the other hand, it may be the size of the Club or its administrative structure is such that it is inevitable that the composition of the tribunal gives an appearance of bias. If this be the case, necessity constitutes an exception to the rule against bias. 47”
“6.14 A member of the tribunal must be unbiased and impartial, Law v Chartered Institute of Patent Agents[1919] 2 Ch 276 289 Eve. J. so cannot be an accuser, either directly or indirectly or as part of a body which made the accusation, which would be a disqualification from membership of that tribunal.22 Determining whether a member is biased is question of fact. The member must be shown to be actually biased. Suspicion is not enough.23”
“Was the general secretary the person who "brings forward the accusation or complaint," not in any formal or technical sense, but when we look to substance, substance and not technicality being the very foundation of natural justice? The complaint against the plaintiff was exactly what Mr. Scott did bring forward, both through the minutes of the October 20 meeting and by the course which he pursued throughout the December 15 meeting. In form and in fact his role included that of presenting the case against the plaintiff; and in fact his role was of pressing the case against the plaintiff at that meeting and, apparently, not considering the case in any judicial sense at all.”