A dispute over a resolution to convert the billiards room at Singapore Recreation Club (SRC) into a co-working space is set to proceed to trial after a High Court judge found triable issues regarding the validity of the vote.
Senior Judge Chan Seng Onn, in his written grounds released on August 26, ruled that questions remain over whether the resolution was properly passed at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on October 18, 2025. The resolution to convert the billiards room on level 2 of the clubhouse into a co-working area was approved by a simple majority but is challenged by two SRC members who contend the vote breached the rules set out in the club’s Constitution.
Sean Kerwin Mathews and Mu Yee Shyong, both members of the club’s billiards section, filed the lawsuit in November 2025 seeking to invalidate the resolution and the related decisions made by the club’s management committee (MC). They argued that the club’s Constitution required a majority of voting members “physically present” at the meeting—at least 280 of the 559 attendees—to approve the resolution. Since only 151 members voted in favour, the plaintiffs claimed it failed to achieve the necessary majority.
The club and its MC initially succeeded in having the claim struck out by an assistant registrar in May, but this decision was overturned by the High Court on June 24 after an appeal by Mathews and Mu. Judge Chan found that there are substantive issues warranting a full trial, including whether the specified constitutional rule applied to the resolution and how to treat blank and spoilt votes.
Judge Chan noted that blank or spoilt votes normally do not count for or against a resolution, but the circumstances here were unusual. Members received conflicting instructions about how to reject the resolutions, and their ability to vote “no” was limited. Members were given two voting slips at the EGM: one on whether to proceed with the relocation plan involving land betterment charges, and a second on whether to accept one of two alternatives—the conversion of the billiards room into a co-working space or its integration within a co-working space. The voting process was structured so that members could not reject both alternatives without spoiling their votes, which raised concerns about the fairness of the vote.
The defendants, represented by Walter Alexander, argued that invalidating the resolution would create a stalemate and serve no legitimate purpose. Judge Chan disagreed, stating that the members had a right to a fair vote and that a fresh vote could be organized.
The resolution dispute stems from a broader $16.6 million transformation plan approved by club members in March 2024 to refurbish the SRC. The plan initially included relocating the billiards room to the basement and creating the co-working space on level 2. However, when land betterment charges unexpectedly exceeded the budgeted $1.5 million—reaching $4.9 million—the management committee considered the relocation financially unfeasible, prompting the vote on alternative proposals.
Of the 514 votes cast at the October 2025 EGM, 151 voted in favour of converting the billiards room, 125 opposed it, and there were 183 spoilt and 55 blank votes. The plaintiffs contend that the blank votes should count as opposing the resolution, arguing that members were instructed to abstain by leaving boxes unticked if they opposed the proposals.
The upcoming trial will determine the validity of the resolution and whether the club’s management properly adhered to the constitutional requirements in conducting the vote.