Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers and Others1
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X7800900106 |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
CASE NOTE
GOURIET
v.
UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS
AND OTHERS1
Relator action -Attorney-GeneraL's discretion -Refusal
of
consent
-Individual entitlement to declaratory relief and injunction.
On
13
January 1977, the general secretary of the Union of Post
Office Workers (hereinafter the "U.P.W.") announced on television
that his union's executive committee had resolved to call on its
members not to handle mail for transmission from England and Wales
to the Republic of South Africa, for the duration of the week com-
mencing at midnight, 16 January 1977. This resolution, if it were
carried out, would have been in breach of the Post Office Act 1953,
s.
68
(U.K.),
which provides:
If
any person solicits or endeavours to procure any other person
to commit an offence punishable on indictment under this Act, he
shall
be
guilty of amisdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment
for aterm not exceeding two years.
The news of this threat by the U.P.W. to break the law and bring
about the interruption of postal services to South Africa annoyed John
Gouriet. On the following day (14 January) he applied to the Attorney-
General for the latter's consent in the institution of relator proceedings
for an injunction to restrain the U.P.W. from calling the strike.
For
the first time on record, the Attorney-General refused his consent to
the proposed relator action.2Quite undeterred, Gouriet brought an
action in his own name (thus making
himself-and
not the Attorney-
General-the
plaintiff) against the V.P.W., seeking an injunction
against the latter. Because this action would not be heard in time to
prevent the imminent strike, the plaintiff applied on the same day
(still 14 January) to Stocker J. (in Chambers) for an interim injunc-
tion matching the terms of the (final) injunction sought in the main
(substantive) action. Stocker J. dismissed the application for the interim
injunction because, in his view, the plaintiff had no locus standi to
bring the main action, given the fact that the Attorney-General had
refused to act
as
plaintiff in such an action.3
The Court
of
Appeal
The plaintiff appealed to the
Court
of Appea1.4The court, however,
declined to give judgment even in these interlocutory proceedings until
1[1977] 2W.L.R. 310 (Court
of
Appeal) Lord Denning M.R., Lawton and
Ormrod L.JJ.; [1977] 3W.L.R. 300 (House of Lords) Lord Wilberforce, Viscount
Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.
2The Attorney-General's consent
is
required in arelator action because in such
an action it
is
the Attorney-General who sues, albeit on the relation of
an
indivi-
dual (the relator).
3[1977] 2W.L.R. 310, 314.
4[1977] 2W.L.R. 310. The appeal was heard on
15
January and, following an
adjournment,
on
18, 19,
20
and
21
January. Judgment was delivered on
27
January.
113
To continue reading
Request your trial