Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 MarsdenLR 96184

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIM CHONG FONG, JCA
CHAN KEAN HIN – Appellant
Versus
DATO SRI DR LEE VILLE & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: P-02(NCvC)(A)-2090-11/2024]

Petitioner Advocates:Tan Swee Cheng,Amanda Lo ,Respondent Advocate: Karin Lim Ai Ching,A Suppiah,Nicholas Lim Wei Jian

A disciplinary body of a social organization acts ultra vires when it investigates collective administrative decisions under rules intended only for personal member misconduct. Such jurisdictional excess renders the proceedings void and exempts the aggrieved party from the requirement to exhaust internal domestic remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 - Section 40 - Internal remedies and exhaustion of domestic procedures - Governing rules of a social club as a contract - Jurisdiction of disciplinary committees over committee members for administrative decisions. (Paras 7, 27-29, 45)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Ultra vires actions - Acts and conduct falling outside the purview of disciplinary rules - Disciplinary committees cannot investigate collective administrative decisions or management policies where such acts do not constitute personal misconduct or behavioral issues of members. (Paras 31-33, 38)

(C) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate intervention is warranted where the lower court exercises discretion based on errors of law, failure to consider relevant matters, or where the tribunal acted without jurisdiction. (Paras 25, 43)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a former head of a club's management committee, challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him following complaints regarding collective administrative decisions made by the committee during his tenure. The club's disciplinary committee alleged misconduct under its internal rules. The appellant sought declarations in the high court that the disciplinary committee lacked jurisdiction to inquire into administrative actions. The high court dismissed the application, holding that the appellant had failed to exhaust internal remedies and that the committee had jurisdiction to investigate members regardless of their status.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the disciplinary committee's power was strictly limited to personal behavior and conduct of members in the use of facilities as specified in the rules. Administrative decisions made by the management committee fall under the general management powers of the organization and do not amount to individual misconduct subject to disciplinary inquiry. Since the committee acted beyond its jurisdiction, the internal exhaustion of remedies rule did not apply as the decision was void from the outset.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary committee possessed the jurisdiction to inquire into collective administrative decisions made by the management committee and whether the appellant was required to exhaust domestic remedies before seeking court intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Internal governing rules of a society act as a contract between members, and disciplinary bodies derive their authority strictly from these provisions. Where a disciplinary body acts outside its scope (ultra vires) by inquiring into matters not defined as misconduct under the rules, its proceedings are void. Consequently, the aggrieved party is not bound to exhaust internal appeal processes before seeking relief from the court, as the tribunal lacks the legal competence to adjudicate the subject matter.

Result: Appeal allowed; high court decision set aside; declarations granted in favor of the appellant.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding club membership expulsion and initial dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
2. disciplinary committees must act within the scope of club rules and lack jurisdiction over administrative committee decisions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
3. exhaustion of domestic remedies is unnecessary when a disciplinary body acts ultra vires. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
4. appeal allowed; declaratory relief granted; parties bear own costs for individual respondents. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT

Lim Chong Fong JCA:

Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns the expulsion of a member from a recreational club.

[2] The Appellant, who was the plaintiff in the High Court, is an individual who previously held the position of President of the Penang Swimming Club ("the Club").

[3] The Respondents, who were the defendants in the High Court, are likewise individuals and members of the Club.

[4] The 1st respondent was sued in his capacity as the Public Officer of the Club, whilst the 2nd and 3rd respondents were sued in their personal capacities by the Appellant.

[5] We heard this appeal during the inaugural sitting of the Court of Appeal in Penang on 26 November 2025. At the conclusion of the hearing, we reserved our decision in order to deliberate on the submissions and arguments advanced by the parties.

[6] Having now done so, we deliver our decision together with the grounds set out below.

Background

[7] The Club is a social club registered under the Societies Act 1966 and is governed by the Penang Swimming Club Rules ("the Rules").

[8] At all material times, the Appellant was a member of the Club. He had previously served as President of the Club in 2002. However, he was removed during an extraordinary general meeting of the Club held on 26 February 2023.

[9] Following his removal, a civil suit, namely Penang High Court Civil Suit No. PA-22NCVC-29-03/2023, was commenced against the Appellant and ten other members of the Club's management committee ("MC").

[10] The said suit was subsequently amicably resolved and a consent judgment was recorded on 15 December 2023.

[11] Notwithstanding the above, the disciplinary committee of the Club ("DC") issued a letter dated 9 May 2024 to the Appellant enclosing the 2nd respondent's complaint dated 2nd May 2024. The Appellant was required to provide his written response within 14 working days, failing which the DC would take the necessary action against him.

[12] The 2nd respondent's complaint concerned a decision of the MC made on 31 May 2022 which allowed the appeal and reinstatement of the membership of Feroz Anandani bin Johan Mohandas, subject to the settlement of his arrears of subscription for the third time. According to the 2nd respondent, the MC had contravened r 40(c) of the Rules.

[13] The Appellant, through his solicitors, replied by letters dated 15 May 2024 and 23 May 2024, challenging the jurisdiction of the DC to entertain the 2nd respondent's complaint.

[14] Subsequently, the DC issued another letter dated 29 May 2024 to the Appellant enclosing the 3rd respondent's complaint dated 13 May 2024. The Appellant was again required to provide his written response within 14 working days, failing which the DC would take the necessary action against him.

[15] The 3rd respondent's complaint concerned a decision of the MC made on 11 January 2023 which waived the Court-awarded costs of RM8,320.00 in favour of the Club against Ng Lee Choo. According to the 3rd respondent, the MC had contravened r 38(b) of the Rules.

[16] The Appellant, through his solicitors, replied by letter dated 4 June 2024, similarly challenging the jurisdiction of the DC to entertain the 3rd respondent's complaint.

[17] Notwithstanding the Appellant's objections, the DC issued a letter dated 18 June 2024 charging the Appellant in respect of the complaints made by the 2nd and 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 MarsdenLR 96184

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYALIM CHONG FONG, JCACHAN KEAN HIN – AppellantVersusDATO SRI DR LEE VILLE & ORS – Respondent[Civil Appeal No: P-02(NCvC)(A)-2090-11/2024]

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIM CHONG FONG, JCA
CHAN KEAN HIN – Appellant
Versus
DATO SRI DR LEE VILLE & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: P-02(NCvC)(A)-2090-11/2024]