Tattersall’s Club says it has no obligation to follow its own rules when members cast votes

TATTERSALL’S Club has no obligation to precisely follow its own rules when members cast votes.

The Tattersall’s Club president Stuart Fraser. Picture: AAP/David Clark

TATTERSALL’S Club has no obligation to precisely follow its own rules when members cast votes.

Damien O’Brien, the QC representing the Brisbane institution, made that astonishing point in the Supreme Court yesterday as the club attempted to fend off a lawsuit seeking to overturn last month’s vote allowing women to join.

That begs the obvious question: Why even have rules in the first place? What else can be set aside for convenience or expediency?

O’Brien conceded that there was one “variation’’ of 28 rules governing the ballot, the stipulation that member numbers should be included on ballots when they are sent out.

Illustration of Damien O'Brien by Brett Lethbridge.

That didn’t happen and 96 ballots were excluded because of members bungling, with numbers missing, incorrect or illegible. Given the 37-vote margin of victory for the ladies out of 2773 total allowed votes, that’s a highly relevant point.

O’Brien said the rules were not “contractually binding’’ and there was no persuasive case for the court to intervene in the affairs of a private social club even if there was some noncompliance with the voting guidelines.

No one was disenfranchised from voting and member Paul Hogan, who has spearheaded the “very unusual’’ legal challenge, has suffered no injury or inability to enjoy use of the club, he told the court.

O’Brien conceded that just seven members lost the opportunity to vote because of 14 duplicate ballots, a fact that did not change the outcome. The other 96 in question didn’t comply with directions but were not disenfranchised, he said.

He also noted that only Hogan has challenged the vote but Judge Glenn Martin shot that point down, saying it was not relevant since another 1000 members could be backing his efforts.

PUBLIC INTEREST

HOGAN’S QC, Nick Ferrett, countered that there were “substantial inconsistencies’’ in the vote and the rules should be viewed as a contract with members.

“There’s a public interest in the enforcement of the rules,’’ he told the court.

Asked by Martin if the voting process was “substantially consistent’’ with the rules, Ferret replied that the club “needs a result that people can have confidence in’’ and there was a “deliberate choice’’ not to allow that to occur.

“There’s no suggestion of malfeasance or dishonesty. We accuse them of not reading the rules and complying with the rules,’’ he said.

While the club has said it’s likely the 96 ballots would not have changed the outcome, that’s not good enough since you “can’t engage in speculation,’’ Ferrett told the court.

Asked why Hogan didn’t challenge the voting process until after the result was announced, Ferrett said his client was unaware of the rules.

SPENDING BIG

AFTER the two hour-plus hearing, which included quite a bit of mind-numbing dissection of case law, Martin reserved his judgment for a few weeks.

Tatts President Stuart Fraser, who attended with members of his committee, declined to comment.

How much is this costing the club, which the court heard has about $30 million in net assets? Fraser wouldn’t say but, having spent $50,000 on the ballot and now forking out the big bucks for a legal team, it can’t be cheap.

Hogan, who was accompanied by a few other “Hogan’s Heroes’’ members opposed to changing the club’s 154-year-old mens only status, also would not discuss the case.

But in an email circulated to supporters this week, Hogan thanked those who had contributed to his fighting fund, which has already raised $60,000.

“This is a fantastic start, and is a great first step toward ensuring the voices of members are heard and this entire debacle is placed firmly in the past. Our goal is to reach the $80,000 mark,’’ Hogan wrote.