Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd; E.E.T.P.U. v Times Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1980 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Trade Union - Legal entity, whether - Defamation - Union's action for damages for libel - Right to sue on behalf of itself and its members - Whether having legal personality - Whether action maintainable -
A trade union commenced an action for libel against a newspaper alleging that two articles published by the newspaper were defamatory of the union. Three preliminary issues were ordered to be determined before the trial of the action.
The agreed questions of law were: (1) Could a trade union (not being a special register body) maintain an action in its own name for damages for defamation in relation to its reputation as a legal entity whether or not such entity was separate and distinct from its individual members? (2) If the answer to question (1) was in the affirmative, was any such cause of action dependent upon proof of damage to the union's property or special damaged suffered by the union? (3) was such a union able to maintain an action for damages on behalf of each and every one of its individual members in the name of the union (without identifying any particular members or member) in relation to a publication which impugned their several reputations as members of the union?
On the preliminary issues: —
Held, (1) that the tort of libel must be founded on possession of a personality which could be libelled and the words of section 2 (1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, by providing that a trade union should not be, or be treated as if it were, a body corporate, removed that personality from trade unions; that, accordingly, a trade union (not being a special register body) could not maintain an action in its ow.n nam.e for damages in relation to its reputation (post, pp. 100C–101A, E–F, 105E–F, 106C–E).
(2) That a representative action was not available to a number of different individuals where the relief sought was damages, that, accordingly, a trade union was not able to maintain an action for damages on behalf of each and every one of its individual members in the name of the union (without identifying any particular member or members) in relation to a publication which impugned their several reputations as members of the union (post, pp. 101F–C, 106H–107C).
Per curiam. The inclusion of the words “subject to section 14” in section 2 (1) (c) of the Act of 1974 could not be construed so that the immunity of a trade union under section 14 from being sued in tort, prevented the union from suing in tort (post, p. 107D–F).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Bonsor v. Musicians' Union [
Engineers' and Managers' Association v. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service [
National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gillian [
Reg. v. City of London Court Judge and Payne [
Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [
Vacher & Sons Ltd. v. London Society of Compositors [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v. Osborne [
Boulting v. Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [
British Airline Pilots Association v. Daily Sketch and Daily Graphic Ltd., The Times, February 4, 1966.
Heatons Transport (St. Helens) Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers' Union [
Hill v. Hart-Davis (
Knupffer v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. [
London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands Ltd. [
Markt & Co. Ltd. v. Knight Steamship Co. Ltd. [
Mercantile Marine Service Association v. Toms [
Mills v. London County Council [
Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [
Williams v. Beaumont (
Willis v. Brooks [
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
By a writ dated November 21, 1977, the plaintiff, the Electrical Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, claimed damages against the defendants, Times Newspapers Ltd., William Rees-Mogg (editor of “The Times”) and Paul Routledge (a journalist employed by Times Newspapers Ltd.), for alleged libels published in “The Times” newspaper of November 18, 1977, entitled “Electrical Union Bars Steel Strike Leader” and “Moderates run the risk of going too far to keep control of the Electricians Union.” The plaintiff also claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing or causing or allowing to be published the alleged libel or any similar libel of or concerning the union. After the close of the pleadings and the case had been included in the term's list for hearing, the defendants sought leave to re-amend their defence and to have the case stood out of the list pending the trial of preliminary issues. On October 16, 1979, Neill J. by order granted the defendants' application and the agreed questions of law were ordered to be tried as preliminary issues before all other questions or issues in the action.
The terms of the agreed questions of law and the facts are stated in the judgment.
Michael Kempster Q.C. and Adrienne Page for the plaintiff union.
Anthony Lester Q.C., Charles Gray and Charles Hollander for the defendants.
O'CONNOR J. In this matter the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union commenced proceedings against Times Newspapers Ltd. and others for libel, in respect of a publication published in “The Times” newspaper in November 1977, which the plaintiff union alleges was defamatory of it.
In those proceedings, and I need not refer to them further (the pleadings have the usual complex and extensive attributes found in actions of defamation), preliminary issues of law have been ordered for trial, and they are:
“(1) Can a trade union (not being a special register body) maintain an action in its own name for damages for defamation in relation to its reputation as a legal entity whether or not such entity is separate and distinct from its individual members? (2) If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, is any such cause of action dependent upon proof of damage to the union's property or special damage suffered by the union? (3) Is such a union able to maintain an action for damages for defamation on behalf of each and every one of its individual members in the name of the union (without indentifying any particular members or member) in relation to a publication which impugns their several reputations as members of the union?”
Those are the issues which fall for determination at this time.
Now it is important to have clearly in mind that these issues are concerned with the law touching the action of defamation. The issues are in no way concerned with any of the law which may or may not touch on industrial disputes. It is the law of defamation with which I am concerned. As was said by Denning L.J. in the Court of Appeal in his dissenting judgment in Bonsor v. Musicians' Union [
‘A libel is, of course, in its very nature, a wrong to the person, not a wrong to property; and it is apparent that it is only by attributing legal personality to a trade union that it can be permitted to sue for a libel on itself.”
That is only applying to a trade union a much broader principle that the action for defamation is a personal matter because it is the reputation of the person which is defamed, and unless one can attach a personality to a body, it cannot sue for defamation. The best examples of this are found in the well-established law that a voluntary unincorporated association cannot maintain an action for libel on itself. Let me give an example. If one says of the Longbeach Anglers’ Association that at the competition last Saturday they cheated, there is a defamatory statement; but the Longbeach Anglers' Association cannot maintain an action in respect of it. It may be that the individuals of the association who were partaking in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd
...28The decision in Gillian has now been over-ruled by statute—see section 2(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974; E.E.T.P.U. v. Times Newspapers [1980] 1 Q.B. 585; but that in no way detracts from the persuasive force of what was said by Uthwatt J. in Gillian 29 Bognor Regis U......
-
Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314
...our opinion, it may be absurd or mischievous”); Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1980] 1 Q.B. 585, 599 (1979) (“It is my task to construe the words and if I find them to be absolutely clear, then even though the results produced may be ......
-
Koh Chong Chiah v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd
...Duke of Bedford, The v Ellis [1901] AC 1 (folld) Electrical, Electronics, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd [1980] QB 585 (distd) Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2011] Ch 345 (not folld) EMI Records Ltd v Riley [1981] 1 WLR 923 (refd) Farnham v Fingold ......
- Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail
-
Class Actions Twenty-five Years On
...507 (Ch), cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 13–14. 27 Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd, [1980] 1 All ER 1097 (QB); Smith v Cardiff Corporation, [1954] 1 QB 210, both cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 16 and 20. 28 Preston v Hilton (1920), 48 OLR 17......
-
Glossary
...507 (Ch), cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 13–14. 27 Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd, [1980] 1 All ER 1097 (QB); Smith v Cardiff Corporation, [1954] 1 QB 210, both cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 16 and 20. 28 Preston v Hilton (1920), 48 OLR 17......
-
Bibliography
...507 (Ch), cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 13–14. 27 Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd, [1980] 1 All ER 1097 (QB); Smith v Cardiff Corporation, [1954] 1 QB 210, both cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 16 and 20. 28 Preston v Hilton (1920), 48 OLR 17......
-
Table of Cases
...507 (Ch), cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 13–14. 27 Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd, [1980] 1 All ER 1097 (QB); Smith v Cardiff Corporation, [1954] 1 QB 210, both cited in OLRC Report, ibid at 16 and 20. 28 Preston v Hilton (1920), 48 OLR 17......