Paul Birch v Paula Brookfield (as personal representative of the estate of Ian Brookfield Deceased)

Hearing dates: 20 th 21 st and 26 th March 2025

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

HHJ

Introduction

This claim is by Mr Paul Birch (‘the Claimant’), a former Labour Councillor in Wolverhampton, against its Labour Group of councillors (‘WLG’) in the City Council (‘WCC’). As an unincorporated association, WLG appears by representative Defendants, Councillor Valerie Evans (‘Cllr Evans’), Councillor Gillian Wildman (‘Cllr Wildman’), Councillor Milkinder Jaspal (‘Cllr Jaspal’) and Councillor Ian Brookfield (‘Cllr Brookfield’) who sadly passed away in July 2023 and whose estate appears by his widow, Mrs Paula Brookfield. She, Cllr Wildman and Cllr Jaspal did not give evidence, only Cllr Evans and the Claimant.

The Claimant's claim alleges breach by the Defendants of the association contract between them by Cllr Evans' decision of 13 ^th October 2022 purporting to impose on the Claimant a 12-month written warning and to remove him from two Council committees in response to a complaint about him by another Labour councillor, Celia Hibbert (‘the Decision’). The Claimant alleges neither sanction was available under the express terms; and also breached implied terms of good faith, rationality and procedural fairness (traditionally called ‘natural justice’). To avoid repetition, I will set out the various allegations when addressing my conclusions about them.

This case raises some difficult — and delicate — legal issues about internal party discipline in local government and its interface with contract law. But the case is factually straightforward and does not involve the Claimant's wider grievances about Cllr Hibbert, who is not a defendant or witness here to give her side of the story. Indeed, the Claimant accepted this at the start of the trial; and that he had not formally raised the issue of freedom of expression. But I did determine at the start of trial that as the Defendants had pleaded the relevance of the ‘ Nolan Principles’, Cllr Evans could be asked about whether she took ‘openness’ into account, which I will consider at the end of this judgment and its overlap with freedom of expression.

While I need not detail the long procedural history, shortly before trial, the Claimant parted company with his original solicitors and whilst he initially instructed new solicitors and applied to adjourn trial, he later withdrew that application. So, he has represented himself, with courtesy and restraint and the invaluable help of his daughter as a litigation assistant (traditionally known as a ‘ McKenzie Friend’). I am grateful to them and to Mr Mundy, Counsel for the Defendants (who was deservedly appointed as King's Counsel between submissions and judgment).

At the start of the trial, we agreed the following issues would be determined:

a. What was the contractual procedure for complaints Cllr Evans had to follow and was Labour Party ‘disciplinary guidance’ she relied on part of that?

b. Did Cllr Evans or other Defendants breach express contractual procedures?

c. Did Cllr Evans or other Defendants breach implied contractual terms by denying the Claimant a fair process or hearing?

d. Did Cllr Evans or the other Defendants act in bad faith or unreasonably in deciding the Claimant had breached WLG rules and imposing sanctions?

e. If the claim succeeds, what remedy should be granted to the Claimant?

As is typical of local councillors up and down the country, the Claimant is a person of principle. As well as being elected as a Labour councillor for Blakenhall Ward in Wolverhampton in 2019 until he stood down in May 2023, he is a Magistrate and former Chair of Victim Support, a fellow of two universities and received the British Empire Medal in 2021. He is also Chief Executive Officer of Revolver CoOperative Ltd, which sells fairtrade commodities, such as ‘Coop Coffee’ to CoOperative Supermarkets (a leading Fairtrade brand) and Revolver Records Ltd. It was apparent from his evidence that the Claimant is motivated by a strong sense of ethics and public service, rather than personal political ambition. Indeed, in his short tenure as a councillor, in doing what he considered right, he was not afraid to provoke opposition even from fellow Labour councillors whom he felt were at fault.

The Claimant's main antagonist in the local Party was Cllr Hibbert. As I have said, she was not involved in this case as a party or even as a witness and I have not heard her side of this story. Accordingly, as the Claimant accepted at the start of the trial, it would not be fair on her for me to make findings about her and nothing I say should be seen as criticism (or indeed commendation) of her conduct. However, it would be contrary to Open Justice (and indeed pointless) to keep her anonymous, as many events I describe took place in the public domain. However, whilst I cannot make contested findings about what Cllr Hibbert actually did, what the Claimant saw her as doing is central to this case. In short, whilst he saw himself as a person of principle, he saw Cllr Hibbert as the opposite. Cllr Hibbert was suspended by WLG in October 2021 after she voted ‘against the whip’ on a senior leadership review (which I return to below as the Claimant expressed strong views about it), but this was overturned on her appeal by the regional Labour Party in November 2021. For other reasons, Cllr Hibbert was suspended again by WLG in June 2023. However, the real core of the Claimant's antipathy towards her was more personal. It is relevant to note that Cllr Hibbert is black, as is the Claimant's wife, Olivia Birch who was also a Labour councillor. Whilst in Cllr Hibbert's absence I cannot make findings about what she did nor did not actually say, I accept it is the genuine belief of the Claimant and his wife that Cllr Hibbert said during Black History Month celebrations in October 2021 that there were only two black councillors on Wolverhampton Council and when asked why she did not include Cllr Olivia Birch as a third, Cllr Hibbert was alleged to have said that Cllr Olivia Birch ‘did not consider herself to be black’. I repeat, I can make no finding as to whether Cllr Hibbert said this or not, but the Claimant and his wife genuinely believe that she did and consequently put in a complaint about Cllr Hibbert to WCC in 2021.

This explains why the Claimant took it upon himself to scrutinise Cllr Hibbert's conduct, culminating in not one but two warnings from WLG in 2022, including the one prompting this claim. It also explains why, whilst the Claimant accepted at the start of trial that I could not make findings about his grievances against Cllr Hibbert, in evidence he strayed repeatedly into those (which I will summarise below). I had to remind the Claimant that as a Magistrate he should be know that witnesses should answer questions rather than make speeches (the art of the politician). The Claimant was also rather defensive and pedantic in cross-examination and at times contradicted earlier statements he had made. His conviction in his own cause (on a recent ‘GoFundMe’ page to raise legal funds, he described himself as ‘fighting political corruption in the Labour Party’) has rather distorted his perspective on events. I stress the Claimant's honesty and integrity is unquestioned, but his evidence is less reliable for its lack of objectivity (I note, all being Nolan principles).

In fairness, the Claimant proved a better asker than answerer of questions. Under his courteous but effective cross-examination, Cllr Evans was disarmingly direct and ready to make concessions. In that, I found her an entirely reliable witness, although not always the most helpful to her own side. She has been a councillor for 17 years and I do not doubt her vast experience of local politics made her a very effective Chief Whip from 2021 to 2024. However, she accepted that other than the disciplinary processes involving Cllr Hibbert in 2021 and the Claimant in 2022, she had not been involved in any at WLG. Moreover, she took on the role at a difficult time in late 2021: mid-Pandemic and just after the resignation of her predecessor after Cllr Hibbert's appeal against her suspension succeeded because procedures had not been properly followed. Indeed, Cllr Evans had been Deputy Whip at that time and gave the impression in evidence that fastidiousness on the procedural technicalities so endemic in local government is not necessarily her forte. In that, she contrasted strongly with the Claimant's rather pedantic insistence on procedural niceties. Like the clash in the approach to politics between Cllr Hibbert and the Claimant, his contrast with Cllr Evans on the importance of procedure is central.

The final main protagonist was the Leader of the Council in 2021–2022, Cllr Brookfield, who sadly died in 2023. Whilst he was (and his estate is) the First Defendant, with the abating of the Claimant's defamation claim, the focus has reduced to one regrettable altercation between him and Cllr Brookfield on 16 ^th October 2022, which led to these proceedings being issued on 27 ^th October 2022. To his credit, the Claimant...