Company articles prevail over informal club practices, defeating any prima facie right to continue Green Card facilities.

Company constitutional documents governed club access, limiting dependant use to age 21 and requiring a separate membership application thereafter. An informal practice allowing overage dependants continued access on payment of penalties did not override the Articles of Association or create a vested contractual right. The Green Card arrangement was therefore prima facie inconsistent with the governing rules, and suspension or termination of that facility was treated as a corrective step linked to the inquiry and restructuring process. On the interim injunction standards, the appellants failed to show a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury, so continuation of the privilege was not protected at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants established a prima facie right to continue using the club facilities as overage dependants or Green Card holders notwithstanding the Articles of Association; and whether the refusal of interim injunction against suspension and termination of such facilities called for interference.

Analysis: The governing documents of the company permitted dependants to use the club facilities only up to the age of 21 and required any child who wished to continue thereafter to apply for full membership. The arrangement by which overage dependants were allowed continued use on payment of penalties was not created by the Articles of Association and was only an informal practice adopted from time to time by committees. Such a practice could not override the company's constitutional documents or create an independent enforceable right. The Green Card arrangement was therefore prima facie inconsistent with the Articles of Association and could not be treated as a contractual or vested right. The action of suspending and terminating that arrangement was also viewed as a corrective step flowing from the tribunal-directed inquiry and restructuring process. On the interim relief parameters, the appellants failed to establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury.

Conclusion: The appellants had no prima facie enforceable right to insist on continuation of Green Card privileges, and the refusal of interim injunction was justified.

---