Melbourne Football Club wins case against club member who alleged board election was a ‘closed shop’

Melbourne Football Club has won a legal challenge from an aspiring board member who alleged its election system was a “closed shop” and will now pursue the member for costs.

Melbourne Football Club will not have to amend its board election rules, after a judge dismissed a court bid by longtime member Peter Lawrence to declare its electioneering process “oppressive”.

Federal Court judge David O’Callaghan ruled on Thursday the club had acted in the best interests of its 70,000 members throughout recent election processes.

“Mr Lawrence has not demonstrated that the impugned decisions of the board were such that no board acting reasonably could have made them,” Justice O’Callaghan said.

Mr Lawrence, a well respected member of the Dees since 1992, launched Federal Court action in December, saying the club’s director election system was a “closed shop”.

The retired finance expert accused the Dees of engaging in “oppressive” conduct towards “non-aligned” board contenders.

The move came after his attempts to seek election to its board of directors had been unsuccessful for four consecutive years.

Melbourne president Kate Roffey has welcomed the court’s decision. Picture: Michael Willson

The court heard before 2020, when Mr Lawrence first threw his name in the hat, the MFC had not conducted a contested election since at least 2004.

Mr Lawrence wanted the court to declare the election process was unfair and have the rules amended to allow running candidates to give media interviews and post to websites or social media platforms as part of their campaign.

He said a ban on candidates making disparaging comments publicly against the club and the board should also be lifted to be able to point out why he should be elected over others.

At a trial in May, the board argued those prohibitions were “reasonable and necessary” to stop the conduct of elections turning into a “media circus”.

Justice O’Callaghan agreed with the evidence of the club’s director and vice president, David Rennick, that the electioneering rules are aimed at ensuring elections are fair and do not favour wealthy candidates able to fund a large-scale public campaign.

“The rules also serve to protect the club and candidates against ad hominem attacks that may deter good candidates from standing for election and cause damage to the club’s brand and reputation,” Justice O’Callaghan said.

“In my view, the directors of the club acted bona fide, without collateral motive.

“They had regard to relevant considerations, and they balanced the interests of the members of the club as a whole as against the interests of a particular member (here, Mr Lawrence).”

Melbourne will pursue Mr Lawrence for costs. Picture: Michael Wilson

But it wasn’t a complete loss for Mr Lawrence, whose legal action did prompt the club to make some changes to its rules on the eve of, and after, the case went to trial.

The club has amended the wording of the non-disparagement clause to say that it “does not prevent reasonable or constructive criticism”.

And the club’s candidate assessment committee also now consists of a majority of independent people.

“Mr Lawrence’s dogged efforts to persuade the MFC to change its election rules and practices have already resulted in the MFC adopting many of the changes to the club’s rules along the lines of those for which he contended,” Justice O’Callaghan said.

Mr Lawrence said those changes addressed some, but not all, of his concerns.

Last year, Mr Lawrence said: “We should have a level playing field that unearths quality (board) candidates from our over 70,000 membership base because the ‘Old Melbourne Way’ is not serving us well at the moment.

“It is a closed shop board which chooses itself. Members are kept at arm’s length.”

In a letter to its members following the judgment, club president Kate Roffey said the board was “committed to a fair and equitable election process that provides members with high quality candidates”.

“The board is pleased with the court’s decision and strongly agrees the changes previously made to the election rules balance the views of the club’s membership,” Ms Roffey said.

She noted the legal action was “disappointing” and costly for the club, and that it would pursue Mr Lawrence for its legal costs.

Justice O’Callaghan told the parties he would accept written submissions on cost orders, but his initial view was that each party should bear their own costs.