Singapore Recreation Club members get second chance to challenge vote to convert billiards room to co-working space

[SINGAPORE] Two members of the Singapore Recreation Club (SRC) billiards group have won the right to make a legal challenge against a plan to convert their room into a co-working space, after the High Court overturned a previous decision to strike out their claim.

In his decision released on Wednesday (Aug 26), Senior Judge Chan Seng Onn allowed an appeal by Sean Mathews and Mu Yee Shyong.

The judge ruled that their case against the club and 11 members of its management committee raised several triable issues that should go to a full trial, rather than be dismissed at a preliminary stage.

The club was ordered to pay the claimants costs of S$30,000 plus disbursements of S$1,901.83 for the appeal. The decision clears the way for the dispute to proceed to trial.

Management committee vs members

The dispute arose from a decision in February 2024 to upgrade the clubhouse to the tune of S$16.6 million. Part of the renovation works included plans to relocate the billiards room from the second floor to the basement, and convert its former space into a co-working area.

Members approved the plan and the associated budget at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) in March 2024.

The plan hit a snag when the land betterment charge required for the basement works came in at S$4.9 million, well above the S$1.5 million originally budgeted.

This prompted the club’s management committee to table three fresh resolutions at an EGM on Oct 18, 2025 – one to pay the higher charge and proceed with relocating the billiards room; and two alternatives on how to convert the second-floor space if the first resolution failed.

Members voted down the relocation resolution. Of the two remaining options, the resolution to fully convert the billiards room into a co-working space was declared passed with 151 votes, against 125 opposed.

SEE ALSO

From fairways to courts: Is pickleball the new golf?

This represented a 54.7 per cent majority of the 276 votes cast, excluding 183 spoilt votes and 55 blank votes.

Mathews and Mu, both from the billiards group committee, filed a claim in the High Court last November, days after the club shut the billiards room to begin renovation works.

They argued that the resolution had not secured the majority required under the club’s constitution, and that the 55 blank votes ought to have been counted against the resolution, given that the club had indicated members could reject both options by abstaining from voting.

The club’s management committee applied to strike out the claim entirely, and an assistant registrar agreed in May this year, finding the claimants’ case legally and factually unsustainable.

Overturned decision

On appeal, Senior Judge Chan disagreed with the assistant registrar’s assessment on several fronts.

He found there was an arguable case that Rule 37 of the club’s constitution – which requires a majority vote at an EGM on questions involving capital expenditure exceeding S$100,000 – applied to the resolution in dispute, since it was at minimum a question incidental to the club’s S$16.6 million spending plan.

He also found triable issues over:

• how a “majority” should be calculated under the constitution;
• whether blank and spoilt votes should have been counted as rejections given the conflicting instructions members received before the meeting; and
• whether members’ voting rights had been improperly curtailed, including members who had voted in favour of the relocation resolution being barred from voting on the two follow-up options.

The judge rejected the club’s argument that the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process or as serving no useful purpose, noting that a fresh vote remained possible and that the renovation works, while under way, were not necessarily irreversible.

Clarence Lun of Fervent Chambers acted for the claimants. Alexander Walter and Claire Goh of Incisive Law acted for SRC and the management committee members.