The Ministry of Justice v Prison Officers Association (POA)

An injunction to restrain breach of a negative contractual obligation should ordinarily be granted. The clean-hands doctrine requires inequitable conduct having an immediate and necessary relation to the relief sought, such that granting relief would be unconscionable.

Unincorporated international treaties do not, without more, justify withholding a domestic contractual remedy. The public interest in preventing serious disruption to prison operations reinforced the case for an injunction.

The Ministry of Justice sought continuation, until expiry of the Joint Industrial Relations Procedural Agreement, of an injunction restraining the Prison Officers Association from organising or supporting industrial action. The injunction followed strike action by prison officers on 29 August 2007 and an interim order made by Ramsey J.

The Association admitted breach and did not dispute that further breach had been threatened. It argued that the claimant had acted inequitably by failing to provide adequate compensatory measures for restrictions on prison officers’ right to strike. The central issue was whether that conduct justified withholding equitable relief.

1. Injunction granted. The claimant established its entitlement to continue the injunction restraining breach of the no-strike provision until 8 May 2008.
2. The clean-hands doctrine required the court to find inequitable conduct, an immediate and necessary relation between that conduct and the relief sought, and unconscionability in granting relief. This approach was consistent with Tensator Group Ltd v Falzon [2004] EWHC 3440 (Ch).
3. The claimant had acted consistently with its stated position that Pay Review Body recommendations would be followed except in exceptional circumstances, including affordability. Staging the pay award for affordability therefore did not amount to inequitable conduct.
4. The international treaties relied on, apart from the European Convention on Human Rights, were not incorporated into English law. Even assuming that they recognised a right to strike subject to compensatory measures, the evidence was insufficient to determine whether those measures were inadequate. Any such failure could not, in the circumstances, justify withholding a domestic contractual remedy.
5. Article 11 did not expressly guarantee a right to strike. In any event, Article 11(2) allowed substantial latitude to regulate industrial action by prison officers performing essential public functions.
6. The serious consequences of the previous strike created a strong public interest in restraining further breach. As stated in Doherty v Allman [1878] 3APP.CA. 709, an injunction against breach of a negative covenant ordinarily gives effect to the parties’ contract.
7. The court declined to decide an additional academic question concerning injunctions for actual breach where equitable relief would otherwise be withheld.