Supreme Court to decide validity of Tattersalls Club vote to allow women

The Brisbane Supreme Court is set to decide if the controversial vote to allow women to join the Tattersalls Club was valid, after one member has launched legal action over a ballot-counting technicality.

Tattersalls Club president Stuart Fraser after the club held a vote tonight to see if they will allow women as full-time members and just not guest, Brisbane Wednesday 19th December 2018 Picture AAP/David Clark

THE Brisbane Supreme Court is set to decide if the controversial vote to allow women to join the Tattersalls Club was valid, after one member has launched legal action over a ballot-counting technicality.

Paul Damian Hogan filed an application in the Brisbane Supreme Court earlier this month against Tattersalls CEO David Bark and president Stuart Fraser, following the December 2018 vote which women granted the right to join the exclusive club by just 37 ballots.

Exclusive club votes to allow women

Club’s gender vote could get ugly

Mr Hogan is also taking the civil action against Brisbane Tattersalls Club committee members, Barry Aaskov, Tyson Clarke, Mark Greer, John Mullins, Michael Paramore, Edward Profke, Tony See and Paul Williams, who are all listed as respondents in the application filed on January 22.

In an affidavit lodged by club member Thomas Noel O’Donnell, who acts for Mr Hogan, the solicitor claims 96 votes were not included in the ballot to allow female membership because of problems with membership numbers being recorded on envelopes.

Tattersalls Club president Stuart Fraser after the club held a vote to see if women could become full members. Picture: David Clark

The alleged voting anomaly was uncovered after Mr O’Donnell and Mr Hogan asked the committee for permission to inspect the counted ballots earlier in January, the affidavit says.

On inspection, there were bundles of votes excluded as informal because they had been marked with a tick rather than a cross and 96 votes in envelopes that had been excluded because of incorrect to missing member numbers, court documents claim.

Amongst those that were bundles and excluded on an “informal basis” were envelopes where there was no membership number, a number had been marked illegibly or the number did not correspond to a current member of the club, the affidavit stated.

The affidavit said Mr Hogan asked why the envelopes were not pre-printed with member numbers before being sent out to voters and was allegedly told: “That’s the way we’ve always done it”.

The Courier-Mail has previously reported 242 of the total votes counted were informal.

On January 16, Mr O’Donnell said he wrote the the Tattersall’s committee to ask them to agree to a concession that the “ballot be deemed invalid”, the affidavit said.

The club declined to do so but said they would “agree to a timetable for the matter to be considered in court”.

Last year’s highly publicised ballot, was expected to allow female members to join the elite club for the first time in Tattersall’s 150-year history.

The motion to allow female members was carried 1405 votes to 1368 in December.

About 60 per cent of the club’s membership participated in the ballot.

The Brisbane Supreme Court will hear the matter on January 31.