<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Sep 5, 2008
SICC SUSPENSION FURORE
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Wronged member awarded $72,000
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Club ordered to pay damages on top of legal fees after 3 costly trials </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Yen Feng
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=330>
</TD><TD width=10>
</TD><TD vAlign=bottom>
Madam Kay's membership was suspended after the general committee of SICC accused her of lying about her marriage. ST FILE PHOTO
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE High Court has tacked on one more bill to the Singapore Island Country Club, following three costly trials over a member's wrongful suspension that began two years ago.
Assistant Registrar (AR) Teo Guan Siew last Friday ordered the swank club to pay damages of $72,000 to Madam Kay Swee Pin, whom it accused of fraud and suspended for a year in 2006.
The money awarded to her comes on top of what is understood to be at least $200,000 in legal fees for the club.
Madam Kay, 54, told The Straits Times last night: 'My lawyers feel that the amount should be more, but I'm not going to appeal.
'This has never been about money.'
For the club, however, money appeared to have been the driving force behind the action it took against Madam Kay from the start.
The general committee of the club, acting on rumours in 2006, accused her of lying about her marriage to Mr Ng Kong Yeam. It alleged that she had declared him as her spouse just so he could use the club's facilities for free.
The 11-member panel then voted to suspend her membership without hearing her side of the story.
Feeling maligned, she took the club to court in January last year.
She lost. The High Court judge ruled that the club had acted within its rights.
But a year later, in the Court of Appeal, she won her case.
In his judgment, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong rebuked the club for having breached the rules of natural justice by denying Madam Kay the right to defend herself.
In June, represented by her lawyer S.H.Almenoar, Madam Kay went to court again to assess the damages owed to her for her wrongful suspension.
She sought redress on three fronts - for the loss of use of club facilities during her year of suspension, the distress it caused her and to punish the club for treating her unfairly.
The High Court awarded her $32,000 for the first, $40,000 for the second, but nothing for the third count.
In a written judgment, AR Teo said that although the club had 'certainly acted in a less than acceptable or reasonable way', the real question was whether it should be made to pay damages specifically to Madam Kay for its misconduct.
He ruled that it should not.
'Without any case law or authority to back up (Mr Almenoar), the weight of authority is against him,' he wrote.
Club president John Kirkham seemed resigned to the judgment.
He told The Straits Times: 'This case has gone through the process. From the point of the club, we've got to get on with our living.'
He may not get to do so just yet.
There is still the pending issue of defamation, which Madam Kay is claiming against the 2006 general committee members who found her guilty of fraud and kicked her out. [email protected]
SICC SUSPENSION FURORE
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Wronged member awarded $72,000
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>Club ordered to pay damages on top of legal fees after 3 costly trials </TR><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Yen Feng
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=330>
</TD><TD width=10>
Madam Kay's membership was suspended after the general committee of SICC accused her of lying about her marriage. ST FILE PHOTO
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE High Court has tacked on one more bill to the Singapore Island Country Club, following three costly trials over a member's wrongful suspension that began two years ago.
Assistant Registrar (AR) Teo Guan Siew last Friday ordered the swank club to pay damages of $72,000 to Madam Kay Swee Pin, whom it accused of fraud and suspended for a year in 2006.
The money awarded to her comes on top of what is understood to be at least $200,000 in legal fees for the club.
Madam Kay, 54, told The Straits Times last night: 'My lawyers feel that the amount should be more, but I'm not going to appeal.
'This has never been about money.'
For the club, however, money appeared to have been the driving force behind the action it took against Madam Kay from the start.
The general committee of the club, acting on rumours in 2006, accused her of lying about her marriage to Mr Ng Kong Yeam. It alleged that she had declared him as her spouse just so he could use the club's facilities for free.
The 11-member panel then voted to suspend her membership without hearing her side of the story.
Feeling maligned, she took the club to court in January last year.
She lost. The High Court judge ruled that the club had acted within its rights.
But a year later, in the Court of Appeal, she won her case.
In his judgment, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong rebuked the club for having breached the rules of natural justice by denying Madam Kay the right to defend herself.
In June, represented by her lawyer S.H.Almenoar, Madam Kay went to court again to assess the damages owed to her for her wrongful suspension.
She sought redress on three fronts - for the loss of use of club facilities during her year of suspension, the distress it caused her and to punish the club for treating her unfairly.
The High Court awarded her $32,000 for the first, $40,000 for the second, but nothing for the third count.
In a written judgment, AR Teo said that although the club had 'certainly acted in a less than acceptable or reasonable way', the real question was whether it should be made to pay damages specifically to Madam Kay for its misconduct.
He ruled that it should not.
'Without any case law or authority to back up (Mr Almenoar), the weight of authority is against him,' he wrote.
Club president John Kirkham seemed resigned to the judgment.
He told The Straits Times: 'This case has gone through the process. From the point of the club, we've got to get on with our living.'
He may not get to do so just yet.
There is still the pending issue of defamation, which Madam Kay is claiming against the 2006 general committee members who found her guilty of fraud and kicked her out. [email protected]
