Choudhry & Ors v Treisman

On an interim application which would effectively determine the dispute, the court must assess the likely outcome on the available material and adopt the course carrying the least risk of injustice. A mandatory injunction requires particular caution, especially where it would compel a registered political party to endorse candidates in whose selection it has genuine and substantial concerns. Save possibly in exceptional circumstances, the court should not grant such relief where the integrity of the selection process is materially in question. The court may interpret contractual rules of an unincorporated association purposively and practically, but a party’s past practice assists construction only where it is sufficiently certain, established and notorious.

The claimants had been selected through Labour Party procedures as local government candidates in Nottingham wards. Following an investigation into alleged membership and voting irregularities, the Party ruled the selections unsound and authorised the imposition of alternative candidates.

The claimants sought declarations and mandatory and prohibitory injunctions before the local government election nominations closed. The application raised issues concerning the NEC’s powers under the Party rules, delegation, natural justice, the sufficiency of the investigation, and the appropriateness of relief.

1. Interim approach. The application would in practical terms determine the dispute because relief had to be granted immediately or would be worthless. The court therefore had to form the best view possible on the available evidence, without finally resolving disputed facts, applying the approach in NWL v Woods [1979] 1 WLR 1294. The mandatory-injunction guidance in Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd [1998] FSR 354, approving Films Rover Ltd v Callum Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670 and Nottingham Building Society v Euro Dynamics Systems [1993] FSR 468, required attention to the comparative risks of injustice.
2. Power under the Party rules. The Labour Party constitution formed a contract between the Party and its members. Rules 5A.2 and 5B.8, read with the NEC’s constitutional powers and the procedural guidelines, were properly given a purposeful and practical interpretation. For the purposes of the interim application, the NEC had power to intervene in a corrupt or unsound local selection process, including by deselecting candidates and imposing others. The court made no final determination because clause 10.5 referred disputes about interpretation to the NEC.
3. Delegation and ratification. The NEC had a wide power of delegation. It was arguable that the disputes panel could subdelegate investigative functions, and the evidence indicated that the NEC had accepted or could ratify the relevant decisions. Injunctions were not justified on this ground.
4. Natural justice and evidence. The investigation had to be conducted fairly and honestly. The claimants should receive sufficient notice of the concerns to enable them to respond, but they had no right to question informants. Although requests for evidence referring to malpractice and the limited notice were unfortunate, the investigation appeared genuine and the material was sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that the selections had been corrupted. The possible procedural defects were unlikely to justify setting aside the decision.
5. Relief and outcome. The integrity of political parties and their candidate-selection processes was of the highest democratic importance. The claimants had shown a serious issue, but no exceptional circumstances. The risk of injustice from granting the injunctions was greater than the risk from refusing them. The application for interim relief, including the injunction preventing the Party from nominating other candidates, was dismissed.