Ex-Senator bowled out in sports club court case

Friday 03 November 2017

A former politician who feared that being rejected from four bowls clubs would lead others to gossip about him has been told that he cannot sue them in the Royal Court.

Ted Vibert (79), an ex-Senator who served in the States during the 00s, had previously been a member of The Sun Bowls Club in St Helier for some years.

In early 2016, he voluntarily left and tried to apply to three other clubs – St Saviour’s Bowls Club, the Jersey Bowling Club and St Brelade’s Bowls Club. But every single one rejected him, and Sun Bowls would not allow him to rejoin – all without an explanation.

Following the news, he took to the Royal Court to resolve the situation, which he said was a “denial of natural justice or procedural unfairness.” He did not take legal help, but instead chose to represent himself.

Mr Vibert said that the rejections had caused him great distress, and that he should be entitled to a sum of money in damages from each of the lawn bowling groups.

He claimed that their actions potentially affected his standing in the community and expressed concerns that they would lead to rumours about him. Moreover, he would no longer be able to carry out his “passion.”

Pictured: Mr Vibert was not allowed to become a member of his former club Sun Bowls when he tried to rejoin. (Google Maps)

Master of the Royal Court Advocate Matthew Thompson, presiding, noted: “While he could still play bowls indoors and there was one other outdoor club which had an artificial surface, the refusal of the defendants meant he could not play bowls outdoors on his preferred surface. The lack of membership with the defendants also meant that he could not enter competitions organised by Bowls Jersey, the umbrella organisation in Jersey for bowling completions. He could not participate in any Bowls Jersey events without being a member of a bowls club.”

“…The plaintiff did not know why his applications had been refused and why he could not be a member of any bowling club.  He felt he was the focus of rumours and gossip. Not knowing why membership had been refused was particularly important in a small community because refusal could lead to speculation or a slur on his character. He therefore argued he was entitled to know the reasons why membership had been refused. Reasons would allow him to challenge refusal of membership where a decision was capricious or reached where there was bias,” he added.

In considering the validity of the case, the Advocate Thompson decided that the issues raised were of “wider significance and are relevant to sports and other social clubs or associations in the Island.”

Such a case had not been heard before in Jersey, and parties were required to consider previous examples of English cases – some as much as half a century old.

Pictured: The Court heard that bowls was Mr Vibert's passion and that he was deeply upset not to be able to compete because he was not part of a club.

After consideration, however, Advocate Thompson decided last week that such matters were none of the Court’s business. In handing down his judgement, he said that sports clubs should not be conducted like courts and that members should be able to use their expertise to run things to their own liking – provided this remains within the confines of the law.

He acknowledged that membership rejections based on personality might seem like ‘bias’, but maintained that stopping clubs from rejecting applicants who they feel might upset balance “is not a direction the law should take.”

Addressing Mr Vibert’s concerns over negative community chit-chat, he added: “I accept that a refusal might give rise to a risk of speculation and gossip in a small community.  However, this is not a problem unique to Jersey; it is a challenge that anyone rejected for membership in many communities might face. This is not a reason to take a different approach than other courts have taken to date. Individuals are protected from speculation and gossip by the law of defamation.” 

Wannabe club members are also protected by the fact that it’s in sports clubs’ best interest to keep attracting people, he added: “…If a club is too rigorous in rejecting individuals because they might not get on, or too restrictive about who it admits as members, that club will not attract the members it needs in order to survive and to thrive. The need of clubs for members in my view is likely to mean that rejection of an applicant for reasons of character will be a rarity.” 

While the Court concluded that Mr Vibert would not be able to sue, he was offered one option: mediation with through the Citizens Advice Bureau. All parties were warned, however, that “any resolution might require a compromise on both sides.”