What a lot of bowls

Wednesday 22 August 2018

A former States member who took his failed Royal Court case to appeal after four bowls clubs refused him membership has been told the final say may rest with the Petty Debts Court.

Former Senator Ted Vibert’s problems began when he fell out with the bowls club he’d been a member of for a number of years – Sun Bowls – and then applied to join three other clubs.

None of the three would have him - although the reasons why have never been made public.

Nevertheless, the rules state you can only be a member of one club at a time. Key to the case is whether Mr Vibert was in fact still a member of Sun Bowls.

Mr Vibert argued that technically wasn’t the case because memberships are suspended during the winter months. He also claims that he’d made a statement that should he be accepted by any of the other clubs he would resign his membership of Sun Bowls.

Pictured: Sunbowls, Mr Vibert's former club at the centre of the dispute.

When the other clubs refused him, he wanted to go back to Sun Bowls. But, in its submission, Sun Bowls says Mr Vibert had resigned and was therefore re-applying for membership, not simply renewing his membership - something the court later agreed with.

Mr Vibert took the case to the Royal Court, asking for £5,000 damages from each of the clubs, saying he’d been denied natural justice, deprived of playing his sport, and his reputation had been injured.

In it’s original decision, the Royal Court rejected Mr Vibert’s claims. It said the rules stated that you couldn’t join another club if you were already a member of another club, and noted: “If an individual leaves a club and later seeks to rejoin that club at some later date in the future, that is a new application for membership and the club is entitled to refuse that application.”

Pictured: Former politician Ted Vibert claimed his reputation had been injured.

Mr Vibert then took the case to appeal, saying amongst other things that he hadn’t resigned from Sun Bowls, he’d simply indicated that he might, and therefore should be allowed to renew his membership.

The appeal court admits the case is a quandary, and says: “If he [Mr Vibert] had resigned then, in our view, his case must fail. If he had not resigned, then he may have a claim... We give no indication of our view whether such a claim can succeed.”

The appeal court then goes on to suggest that if Mr Vibert wants to pursue his case against Sun Bowls for £5,000, the best way to do it, since it would be cheaper and probably more efficient, should be through the Petty Debts Court.

It’s not clear whether Mr Vibert will be continuing with his case, and if so, whether he’ll take the advice and follow the Petty Debts route.