Christine Evangelou and Others v Iain McNicol (sued as a representative of all members of the Labour Party except the Claimants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Beatson |
| Judgment Date | 12 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 817 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2016/3148 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 August 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 817
Lord Justice Beatson
Lady Justice Macur
and
Lord Justice Sales
Case No: A2/2016/3148
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Hon. Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Clive Sheldon QC and Julian Milford (instructed by William Sturges LLP) for the Defendant/Appellant
David Goldstone QC and Imogen Proud (instructed by Harrison Grant) for the Claimants/Respondents
Hearing date: 11 August 2016
Judgment Approved
I. Introduction
This is the judgment of the court to which all members of the constitution have contributed. The appeal concerns eligibility to vote in the Labour Party's forthcoming leadership election. This depends on the interpretation of the Labour Party's 2016 Rule Book which constitutes a contract between the individual members, and the extent of the power the Rules give to the National Executive Committee of the Party ("the NEC") to define eligibility criteria and set out procedural guidelines for elections. In particular, it concerns the effect of a resolution of the NEC on 12 July 2016 that only those who had been members of the Party for six continuous months, that is had been members since 12 January 2016, could vote in the leadership election. In his judgment ( [2016] EWHC 2058 (QB)) handed down on 8 August 2016, Hickinbottom J decided that that resolution, would, if acted upon, be a breach of the Party's contract with its members. His order, also dated 8 August 2016, stated that the claim for breach of contract is allowed and that the judgment stand as declaratory relief.
The appellant, Iain McNicol, is the General Secretary of the Labour Party. He appeals against the order with the permission of the judge. The respondents are five members who joined the Labour Party in the period between 12 January and 12 July 2016. One, Chris Granger, joined on 20 January 2016. The other four, Christine Evangelou, the Rev. Edward Mungo Lear, Hannah Fordham, and FM (a child), joined after the EU referendum on 23 June 2016. As a result of the resolution, they are not eligible to vote in their capacity as members. The closing date for applications to become registered supporters was 20 July 2016 and the second, third and fourth respondents, who became registered supporters, are eligible to vote in that capacity. The fifth respondent is under 18 and ineligible to become a registered supporter. The first respondent did not become a registered supporter, both on principle because she was already a member and in the light of financial constraints. The judge's order required the Party to pay £25 in damages to the second, third and fourth respondents in recompense for the fee they had each paid.
The judge also considered claims by the respondents based on implied terms, misrepresentation, and unlawful discrimination. In view of his finding on breach of contract, he stated that it was unnecessary to reach a decision on the claims based on implied terms and misrepresentation, although he expressed scepticism about them. As to the claim of unlawful discrimination, he stated that, although jurisdictional problems could have been overcome by transferring the proceedings to the County Court, he did not need to make any specific order in respect of that claim in view of the finding on the contract claim and because the discrimination claim was an alternative to that. It was not suggested below or before this court that the NEC acted irrationally or capriciously in imposing the eligibility requirement that is challenged in these proceedings. The focus of this appeal is therefore confined to the question whether the procedure agreed by the NEC at the meeting on 12 July 2016 was a breach of the contract between the individual members contained in the rules.
The issue between the parties is whether the provisions in the Labour Party's 2016 Rule Book entitle all members to vote in the leadership election unless excluded by another rule, as the respondents maintain, or whether, as the appellant maintains, the rules relied on by the respondents, in particular Chapter 4, clause II(2)(C)(vi) and Chapter 2, clause I(2), only prescribe the general category of persons constituting the electorate and do not provide that all those within the category are necessarily entitled to vote. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that those rules are not intended to and do not define which members may vote in a particular election, and that the power to determine which members are eligible to vote is vested in the NEC.
The appellant's case is that Chapter 4, clause II(2)(C)(vii), which states that the "precise eligibility criteria shall be defined" by the NEC, empowers the NEC to set eligibility criteria for voting in the election which restrict entitlement to vote by reference to a period of continuous membership of the Party commencing before the date when the election process starts. It was submitted that Chapter 4, clause II(1)(A), which states that the NEC "will … issue procedural guidelines" in respect of the timetable for and other matters relating to the conduct of elections for leader of the Party, read with Chapter 4, clause II(2)(C)(iv) which makes it clear that the timetable will include "any freeze date", empowers the NEC to set a freeze date before the date when the election process starts. These, it was argued, are matters expressly placed within the competence of the NEC by those provisions in the Rule Book. The appellant maintained that this position is consistent with the wide powers given to the NEC under the Rule Book to uphold the Party's constitution and to act as its administrative and procedural authority. We set out or summarise the provisions in the 2016 Rule Book that are material to this appeal in Section II of this judgment. We consider the approach taken by the law to the interpretation of the rules of an unincorporated association such as the Labour Party in Section III.
It is relevant to mention that at the meeting on 12 July 2016 the NEC made two other decisions. One was that to which we have referred at [2] above. Affiliated supporters and registered supporters of the Party who were over 18 years of age, on the electoral roll, and whose applications for registration were received between 18 and 20 July 2016 and who had paid a fee of £25 would be allowed to vote. The second was that, in a leadership election, the incumbent leader of the Party is not required to obtain the number of nominations specified in Chapter 4, clause II(2)(B)(ii) of the Party's rules in order to participate. A challenge to the latter resolution was rejected on 28 July 2016 by Foskett J: see Foster v McNicol [2016] EWHC 1966 (QB).
These proceedings were issued on 21 July 2016 and were heard by Hickinbottom J on Thursday 4 August. With commendable expedition, he handed down his full and well-structured judgment on Monday 8 August. It had been clear at an early stage that the losing party might wish to appeal and, in view of the end of the legal term, arrangements were made to ensure that a Court of Appeal would be able to hear the case with expedition. The case came before this court on Thursday 11 August.
Before us, Clive Sheldon QC and Julian Milford appeared for the appellant and David Goldstone QC and Imogen Proud for the respondent. Messrs Sheldon and Goldstone did not appear below and, in view of the need for the case to come on urgently, had little time to prepare. We thank them and junior counsel for their submissions and for ensuring that the appeal was well-prepared in a very short time. The clarity of the submissions has assisted us in producing this judgment on the day after the hearing.
II. The Labour Party's 2016 Rule Book:
The Rule Book is a detailed document containing 15 chapters and 8 appendices. As stated by Foskett J in Foster v McNicol at [28], it is not the product of a single drafting exercise. The result is (see ibid at [53]) that it contains examples of what Roskill LJ in Bristol Equity v Gowing [1997] ICR 393 described as "untidy draftsmanship".
For the purposes of this appeal, the crucial provisions are Chapters 2 and 4. There are other relevant rules in Chapter 1, clauses II, VIII and X, Chapter 2, clause I, Chapter 4, clauses I and II, and Appendices 1 and 2. It is convenient to set out and summarise the material provisions of the rules in the order in which they appear in the Rule Book.
Chapter 1 is entitled "Constitutional Rules". Its material provisions are:
" Clause I.
Name and objects
…
4. The Party shall give effect, as far as may be practicable, to the principles from time to time approved by Party conference.
Clause II.
Party structure and affiliated
Organisations
1. There shall be a National Executive Committee of the Party (the 'NEC') which shall, subject to the control and directions of Party conference, be the administrative authority of the Party.
…
Clause VI.
Labour Party Conference
1. The work of the Party shall be under the direction and control of Party conference … Party conference shall meet regularly once in every year and also at such other times as it may be convened by the NEC.
…
Clause VIII.
The National Executive Committee
…
2. The primary purpose of the NEC shall be to provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sukhbinder Singh Sandhu v Tarsem Singh
...legal principles as to the interpretation of contracts, which are a matter of law for the court, see Evangelou and others v McNicol [2016] EWCA Civ 817 at [18] – [20]. 14 The Supreme Court has recently reiterated guidance on the proper approach to interpreting or ascertaining the meaning an......
-
Dr Mohammad Emranul Haque v Mr Musleh Faradhi (sued on behalf of himself and all other Members of the Muslim Community Association)
...the ordinary rules of contractual construction. The relevant principles were summarised by the Court of Appeal in Evangelou v McNicol [2016] EWCA Civ 817, where the relevant unincorporated association was a political party: “18. The Labour Party is an unincorporated association. As such, i......
-
Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd (formerly called Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd) v AMEC (BSC) Ltd (formerly called CV Buchan Ltd)
...set out by Lord Neuberger in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, neatly summarised recently by Beatson LJ in Evangelou v McNichol [2016] EWCA Civ 817, or issues such as the correct legal approach to ambiguity and the proper application of the contra proferentem principle. 8 CONCLUSIONS 105 For......
-
Anna Rothery v David Evans (Sued on behalf of all other members of the Labour Party except the Claimant)
...to which each member adheres when he joins the party” 132 This was echoed by the Court of Appeal in Evangelou and Others v McNicol [2016] EWCA Civ 817, at pararaphs 19–23. In Evangelou, the Court of Appeal also said that: (1) The proper approach to the interpretation of the constitution an......