SINGAPORE — For the second time, a business consultant and his wife will have their membership at the Singapore Swimming Club reinstated, after a suspension imposed by the club — on the basis that Mr Mike Sim’s conviction for insider trading could embarrass the club — was overturned in court.

On top of regaining their club membership, the three Court of Appeal judges — Sundaresh Menon, Andrew Phang and Chan Sek Keong — also ordered the club to pay Mr Sim and his wife about S$30,000 in damages.

The couple’s tussle with the club began in 2013, a year after Mr Sim was convicted of insider trading.

He had used his girlfriend’s account to sell Sinwa shares based on information that was not yet publicly available. Mr Sim had been the executive chairman of the mainboard-listed company.

His membership was suspended in April 2013, after a member complained that Mr Sim’s conviction involved an element of dishonesty or moral turpitude that could cause disrepute or embarrassment to the club. His wife, who held a “family membership” with him, also had her membership suspended.

The couple brought the case to court, which overturned the suspension on the grounds of the club failing to follow the correct procedure.

But during this time, the club elected a new management committee, which included members from the previous committee.

After the court ruling, the new committee re-evaluated the couple’s membership, and suspended them again in October 2013.

Mr Sim and his wife again challenged this move in the High Court, with Mr Sim claiming among other things that the new committee had pre-judged the case.

But the couple’s application was dismissed by Justice Chan Seng Onn, who found no apparent pre-determination made in the decision of the new committee. The couple then appealed against this.

Yesterday, their lawyer R S Bajwa said there was evidence of pre-judgement in the official letters drafted by the members in the management committee, before they met in October 2013.

Lawyers acting for the club had argued that it was out of necessity that the management committee had to decide on the couple’s membership, as no one else could do it.

But Mr Bajwa countered that the general body could have formed an ad-hoc committee to consider the matter.

He also argued that under the club rules, members facing suspension have a six-month grace period to sell their membership, including the family membership, and pending such a sale during this period, there was no reason to suspend Mr Sim’s wife’s membership.

Delivering the appellate court’s decision yesterday, Chief Justice Menon said they allowed the appeal on three grounds: That there was a case of pre-judgment, that they did not think that a doctrine of necessity applied in this case, and that they did not think there was any waiver made by Mr Sim in relation to the objections he raised.

Details on the decision will be set out in a written judgment at a later date.