Oxford University v Webb

An unincorporated association may be sued representatively under CPR 19.6 where it is sufficiently coherent, even if it deliberately lacks formal constitutional structures. The relevant question is whether the group has a consistent and coherent core whose members share its aims, objectives and means. The safeguards in CPR 19.6, including notice to represented persons and the requirement of permission before enforcement against non-parties, protect individuals from injustice. An unincorporated association cannot ordinarily be sued other than through a legal person capable of representing it. A person who acts as the organisation’s central spokesman and propagandist may be sued both representatively and in an individual capacity. Article 10 does not protect sustained propaganda that materially contributes to threats and criminal activity.

The University sought continuing injunctive relief in proceedings arising from a campaign against the construction of a biomedical research laboratory. The tenth defendant, Robin Webb, was sued personally and as representing the unincorporated association known as the Animal Liberation Front. Earlier procedural orders had struck out and then reinstated aspects of the claim, leaving questions about the proper status of the ALF and Mr Webb.

The court determined whether the ALF could remain a defendant through representative proceedings, whether Mr Webb was a suitable representative, whether the ALF could be sued without a representative legal person, whether an injunction could continue against it, and whether Mr Webb should remain liable personally and subject to the injunctions.

1. Representative proceedings. The ALF, together with closely connected groups and its press office, constituted a reasonably coherent organisation. Its lack of formal constitution, committee structure or overt membership did not prevent representation under CPR 19.6. The evidence showed a consistent core, effective communications, coordinated campaigning and agreement on aims, objectives and means. The ALF’s active support for unlawful action distinguished it from the divided organisations considered in United Kingdom Nirex Ltd v Barton.
2. Safeguards. The possibility that individuals on the fringe might have different defences did not prevent a representative order. Notice enabled represented persons to seek joinder or other interlocutory relief, including release from an injunction. In addition, enforcement against a non-party required the court’s permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b). Those safeguards allowed the rule to operate without injustice.
3. Representative defendant. Mr Webb was a central and pivotal figure and was an appropriate representative of the ALF. He had acted as its press officer for many years and his role materially supported and amplified the movement’s unlawful campaign.
4. Separate legal personality. The ALF could not properly be sued other than through a legal person. An unincorporated association was not itself a legal person, and the court adopted the reasoning in EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign to Smash EDO on the need for individuals capable of being sued as representatives. The question was immaterial to the outcome because the ALF remained represented by Mr Webb.
5. Mr Webb personally and Article 10. Mr Webb was to remain a defendant in his own right and subject to the injunctions. The activity established by the evidence was materially different from reputable journalism reporting extremist views. It was sustained propaganda intended to maximise the intimidating effect of criminal conduct. The injunctions therefore did not interfere with legitimate freedom of expression. The ALF and Mr Webb remained parties and the existing injunctions continued.