## Facts

- Colonel Dawkins was a long-time member of a private London social club governed by written rules regulating discipline and expulsion.
- The club rules allowed expulsion for conduct “injurious to the character and interests of the club,” but only after (1) a committee recommendation that the member resign, (2) the member’s refusal to resign, and (3) a majority vote for expulsion at a general meeting.
- An envelope was mailed to a lieutenant-general who was also a club member; the envelope contained language portraying the lieutenant-general as dishonorable.
- The club committee and governing body began an inquiry under the rules and wrote to Dawkins asking him to admit whether he had sent the envelope.
- The committee compared handwriting on correspondence associated with Dawkins to the handwriting on the envelope and concluded Dawkins was responsible.
- The committee asked Dawkins for an explanation; Dawkins declined to provide one.
- The committee recommended that Dawkins resign voluntarily; Dawkins refused.
- The committee gave notice of a general meeting, and the members voted by the required majority to expel Dawkins.
- Dawkins brought a Chancery action against the club officers/committee members (including Antrobus), seeking a declaration that the expulsion was invalid and an injunction restoring his membership rights.
- Dawkins argued that the notice of the general meeting was insufficient and that committee members’ affiliations with the lieutenant-general improperly influenced the process.
- The Master of the Rolls held the expulsion valid under the rules, found no proof of malice, and dismissed the claim.
- Dawkins appealed.

## Issues

1. Will a court set aside a private club’s expulsion decision where the club acted under its written rules and a majority vote, but the expelled member alleges inadequate notice and improper influence?
2. Are the club’s rules to be construed and applied as contractual terms between members, limiting judicial review to whether the club acted within its powers and according to its procedures?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the expulsion in place.
- The court treated the club’s rules as a contract and construed them according to their ordinary meaning.
- On the record, the club acted within the authority the rules granted and followed the steps the rules required (committee inquiry and recommendation to resign, notice of a general meeting, and a majority vote to expel after refusal to resign).
- The court would not rehear the merits of whether Dawkins’s conduct justified expulsion; the question for the court was whether the club stayed within its rules and acted in good faith.
- The allegations of insufficient notice and improper influence did not show a rule violation or bad faith sufficient to invalidate the expulsion or justify injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- The constitution and rules of a voluntary association or club governing discipline and expulsion are construed by courts as contractual terms among the members and the association’s governing bodies.
- Courts construe such rules like other contracts, giving the words their ordinary meaning rather than reshaping them to avoid hard results.
- Judicial control of a “domestic tribunal” decision is limited: courts generally intervene only where the association acts outside the powers granted by its rules, fails to follow mandatory procedures, or acts in bad faith.
- A court will not act as an appellate body on the correctness or proportionality of the association’s decision where the decision was reached under the agreed rules and without proof of bad faith.
- Claims of bias or improper influence require evidence showing disqualifying bad faith or a process inconsistent with the rules; mere association or connection with a complainant is not enough by itself.

## Conclusion

Dawkins v. Antrobus upheld a private club’s expulsion of a member because the club acted within the scope of its written rules, provided the procedural steps the rules required (including notice and a general meeting vote), and the expelled member failed to prove bad faith or a rule breach that would justify judicial intervention.


Dawkins v. Antrobus, 17 Ch. D. 615 (1879)