South Sydney Juniors
The following summary of the judgment in South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club Limited v. FC of T is provided to help you self-assess if your club is a society, association or club established for the encouragement of a game or sport. For a copy of the published case judgment see South Sydney Junior Rugby League Club Limited v. FC of T.
End of attention
The objects in the club's constitution included:
- to provide a social and sporting club, and
- to promote rugby league.
The club's support of rugby league was by:
- profits paid to South Sydney District Junior Rugby Football League Limited and South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Limited, and
- non-cash support of junior football.
The club had 31 sporting and non-sporting sub-clubs with a membership of approximately 1,500.
Under the club rules the junior football league appointed four out of the seven directors.
Club membership was approximately 45,000.
The club's non-sporting facilities included:
- entertainment and shows at its auditorium
- two restaurants, a bistro/snack bar and seven bars
- gaming facilities - TAB, Keno and 545 poker machines
- tourist hotel called 'Una Voce'
- holiday units at the Entrance and Forster
- harbour cruises on its 'luxury' catamaran
- coach trips on the club's buses
- a facility for the provision of home and business loans
- investment in real estate, including land from which rental income was derived and land held for resale.
The club described itself in annual reports as follows:
'The parent entity operates predominantly in the licensed club industry. The principal activities of the parent entity are to provide club facilities and services to its members'.
The tribunal decided the club was not exempt and noted:
- The encouragement of rugby league was a main object equal to that of the licensed club itself.
- The club's reports indicated a principle activity other than sport.
- The club did not field any teams or provide a sporting field except contribute to the maintenance of one field.
- There was no evidence that the members (or a substantial body of them) were interested in rugby league.
- The rugby league club was a separate entity and its results could not be consolidated with the club.
- The club had a very large membership and offered a large range of activities and facilities and entertainment.