DATUK TANG CHAI YOONG v 1. ) FOO WAH CHEK didakwa atas kapasitinya sebagai Presiden Persatuan Hainan Selangor Dan Wiilayah Persekutuan 2. ) TAN KUAN FENG didakwa atas kapasitinya sebagai Naib Setiausaha Agung Persatuan Hainan Selangor Dan Wilayah Persekutuan 3. ) PERSATUAN HAINAN SELANGOR DAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

Case Significance

Confirms the courts' supervisory role over the discipline of registered societies: a governing body cannot override a disciplinary committee's acquittal and expel a member without following its own constitution and affording a fair hearing, and section 40 of the Societies Act 1966 requires no prior reference to the Registrar absent an express constitutional term or consent.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the expulsion of a member from a Chinese clan association and the natural-justice and constitutional limits on a society's internal disciplinary process. The appellant — a natural person referred to here by role, a long-serving former President of the association — was the plaintiff below; the respondents are the association, Persatuan Hainan Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (a society registered under the Societies Act 1966 which owns and manages the Thean Hou Temple), and two of its office-holders sued in their official capacities. The appellant challenged his suspension and expulsion after disciplinary proceedings.

A Disciplinary Committee had inquired into thirteen charges against the appellant, with both sides represented by counsel, and had concluded that all thirteen charges were "not proven" and dismissed them. Notwithstanding that outcome, the association's General Council and Executive Committee rejected the Disciplinary Committee's findings, imposed a suspension and expelled the appellant. The High Court had declined to intervene, but the Court of Appeal took a different view.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decision. It held that section 40 of the Societies Act 1966 does not mandate prior reference to the Registrar of Societies in the absence of an express constitutional requirement or the parties' consent — so that route did not bar the appellant's claim. On the merits, it held that the General Council and Executive Committee had "acted ultra vires the Association's Constitution" by rejecting the Disciplinary Committee's findings, imposing suspension and expelling the appellant "without proper recommendation or procedure." Critically, the appellant had been "denied natural justice", particularly the right to be heard on appeal and at the extraordinary general meeting at which his fate was decided. Finding that the Judicial Commissioner had exercised his discretion on a wrong principle and occasioned a miscarriage of justice, the court entered judgment for the appellant, with costs of RM25,000 payable by each respondent.

The judgment is a valuable statement of the supervisory role of the courts over the discipline of registered societies: a governing body cannot override a disciplinary committee's acquittal and expel a member without following its own constitution and affording the member a fair hearing, and section 40 of the Societies Act 1966 does not require prior reference to the Registrar absent an express constitutional term or consent.