Cheng Wai Lun William (鄭偉倫) v Archery Association of Hong Kong China (中國香港射箭總會) [2026] 3 HKLRD 869, [2026] HKCFI 3917 (Sanjay A Sakhrani)

Sanjay A Sakhrani and Wayne Hariman represented the plaintiff in Cheng Wai Lun William (鄭偉倫) v Archery Association of Hong Kong China (中國香港射箭總會) [2026] 3 HKLRD 869, [2026] HKCFI 3917.

D was the local governing body of the sport of archery and was a company limited by guarantee. P was an individual member of D and was registered as a coach and a judge with D. D received a complaint letter from a club member regarding P’s inappropriate language and suspected sexual harassment committed during and after a competition. P was informed about the complaint with a copy of the complaint letter, and was informed that disciplinary proceedings would be commenced. P provided a preliminary response in writing. Subsequently, P was given a seven-day notice in advance that a disciplinary hearing would take place before a disciplinary sub-committee (the DSC) pursuant to D’s bye-laws and articles of association. P could not attend the scheduled hearing as he had prior arrangements fixed about a year ago. The DSC proceeded with the disciplinary hearing in P’s absence and upheld the accusations against P. The DSC decided to suspend P’s duty as a judge until the meeting of the executive committee (the EC). P’s lawyers were not allowed to attend the EC meeting despite P’s request, and P did not have the opportunity to make submissions on sentencing. The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was approved by the EC, and P’s membership with D was suspended for a period of three years. P applied for declaratory and injunctive relief against the outcome of the disciplinary hearing and D’s decision to suspend his membership.

Held, allowing the application and granting the declaratory and injunctive relief sought, that:

(1) It was trite that a company’s articles of association represented a contract between the company and its members. Where a contract provided an apparently unqualified power or discretion, the term was generally to be construed as being subject to an implied requirement that it could only be exercised in good faith, rationally and for proper purposes, and not arbitrarily or capriciously or in a manner which was not bona fide (Chan Kin Tat v Volleyball Association of Hong Kong, China Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2064, Yang Zhizhong v Nomura International (Hong Kong) Ltd [2024] HKCFI 2192 applied). (See paras.21-22.)

(2) Contractual provisions providing for a disciplinary process would generally include an implied term that the process would be fair. There should be no difference as to what constituted unfairness or the standard of fairness required between an implied term and the same tribunal under public law (Bradley v The Jockey Club [2007] LLR 543, AB v University of XYZ [2020] EWHC 2978 (QB) applied). (See paras.26-27.)

(3) D was under implied obligations to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings against P were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. D, which held a discretion when dealing with the rights of P as a member, must exercise that discretion only when required to do so, and only upon the basis of relevant factors in existence at the time D was required to exercise the discretion. D must not exercise its discretion in relation to the procedural matters regarding the disciplinary proceedings in a capricious or irrational manner (Hong Kong Rifle Association v Hong Kong Shooting Association [2007] 4 HKLRD 121 applied). (See paras.23-24, 28.)

(4) In contemplating suspension or expulsion of a member, D was duty bound to accord to P the right to be heard, particularly because suspension and expulsion carried stigma. No proceeding in the nature of a judicial proceeding could be valid unless the party charged was told that he was so charged, was called on to answer the charge, and was warned of the consequences of refusing to do so. A purported suspension or expulsion effected in breach of the rules of natural justice was, as a matter of law, inoperative (Baroness Baillieu v Foreign Correspondents ‘ Club Hong Kong [2009] 5 HKLRD 557 applied). (See para.25.)

(5) The disciplinary proceedings against P were conducted in a manner that was in breach of the principles of natural justice and irrational/unreasonable in multiple respects (See paras.28-29):

(i) The disciplinary hearing should not have taken place in P’s absence when he had a legitimate explanation as to why he was unable to attend the same on short notice. P’s attendance was of crucial importance as he was entitled to give an account of the alleged events from his perspectives. A fair hearing could not have taken place in the absence of P. (See para.30.)

(ii) D had failed to identify, with clarity, the actual case that P had to meet before the DSC exercised its disciplinary power. The complaint letter could not substitute a properly prepared statement which should set out the material facts and the relevant provisions or rules that P had allegedly contravened. (See para.31.)

(iii) The DSC’s findings against P went beyond the accusations under the Complaint Letter, and P had no opportunity to address the accusations relating to the findings. (See para.32.)

(iv) The transcripts of the disciplinary proceedings gave the strong impression that the DSC was influenced by irrelevant, extraneous and prejudicial matters that were unrelated to the accusations under the complaint letter. P had no opportunity to respond either. (See para.33.)

(v) The chairman of the EC should not have disallowed P from being accompanied by his legal representatives to attend the meeting with the EC, bearing in mind that P’s professional reputation and career were at stake. He had misunderstood D’s internal procedure as the decision stood on a false premise that P had the right to bring an appeal, when there was none. In any event, even if P had a right to appeal, this was still not a sound reason to deny him the opportunity to have legal representation. (See para.34.)

(vi) In light of the seriousness of the sanctions, P should have been given an opportunity to address the EC and/or the DSC in regard to the appropriate sanctions, but none was given to P. (See para.35.)

[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]