McEllistrim v Ballymacelligott Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: House of Lords (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 01 Jan 1919

H. of L.,

M'Ellistrim

Appellant

and Ballymacelligott Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Limited

Respondents

Rules - Alteration of, to members' prejudice - Competition with society -Ultra vires - Restraint of trade - Arbitration -Jurisdiction - Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893 (56 57 Vict., c. 39), ss. 10 (1), (2), 22, 49 (1), 60, Sched. II., Clause 9.

Theappellant in 1903 became a member of the respondent society, a co-operative dairy society, registered in that year under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, with certain special and general rules, rule 20 of the special rules providing for forfeiture of any member's shares who, without the written consent of the society, during three years from his becoming a member, should supply milk to any creamery other than the society's. In 1916 new rules, to which the appellant did not assent, were adopted by the society and registered. The new rules provided that the society would accept and pay for milk of members' cows at a price fixed by its committee. Rule 6 (2) bound the member to sell such milk to the society, and if he, without the written consent of the committee, sold such milk to any creamery other than a creamery of the society or to any milk seller or butter manufacturer, he should pay to the society the sum of 1s. per cow per day for every cow's milk sold contrary to the sub-rule. Rule 16 provided that a member whose shares had been transferred or cancelled should thereupon cease to be a member, but a member was not otherwise entitled to withdraw from the society. Rule 21 required the consent of the committee to any transfer of shares, but the committee was not bound to assign any reason for refusal. Rules not fundamental might be rescinded or altered or any new rules made and the rules provided for the decision of disputes in the manner thereby specified. The appellant claimed that the new rules were to his prejudice, an unreasonable restraint of trade, and ultra vires the respondent society. The respondents denied...