Commission for Equality & Human Rights v Griffin & Ors

The court determined the meaning and scope of an injunction made by HHJ Collins restraining the British National Party (represented by the defendants) from applying or requiring certain discriminatory membership provisions. The Commission had sought committal for contempt for alleged breaches. The court held that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the injunction should be construed as directed to the terms on which persons are admitted to membership (the admission criteria) rather than to the separate rights that members may exercise after admission, such as attendance at meetings or voting. The court emphasised that an order enforceable by committal must be clear and unambiguous, and construed the order in light of the pleadings, the judgment below and the fact that a penal notice supported enforcement. The prohibition concerning clause 4.38 was read narrowly as a prohibition against applying or retaining that clause itself pending its removal rather than as an open-ended prohibition against any similar requirement elsewhere in the constitution. Because the order was capable of the narrower construction, the Commission’s application for committal could not succeed as a clear breach was not established.

Background and parties:

The Commission for Equality and Human Rights brought representative proceedings against members of the British National Party (BNP) seeking to restrain discriminatory membership rules under the Race Relations Act 1976. HHJ Collins made an order on 12 March 2010 prohibiting the BNP from requiring new members to agree with or support certain principles and prohibiting application of clause 4.38 of the BNP constitution, among other terms.

Procedural posture and relief sought:

• The Commission applied for committal for contempt and for ancillary relief (including sequestration) in respect of the BNP’s adoption of version 12.2 of its constitution. The county court transferred part of the application to the High Court and the matter proceeded to a hearing in the Administrative Court.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether paragraphs 1 and 2 of HHJ Collins’ order were directed solely to the terms on which persons are admitted to membership or whether they extended to the conditions attaching to membership once membership had been obtained (for example rights to attend meetings and to vote).
• Whether version 12.2 of the constitution complied with the order, in particular whether discriminatory requirements had simply been relocated from admission to the conditions for exercising member rights.
• The proper construction and scope of the prohibition relating to clause 4.38.

Reasoning and decision:

The court applied the principle that orders supported by penal notices and enforceable by committal must be clear; ambiguous orders should be construed less onerously for those on whom they are served. It read the order against the pleadings, the judgment of HHJ Collins and the course of the proceedings, observing that the Commission had pursued a case under section 25(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 directed to admission criteria. The judgment below had addressed clause 4.1.4.3 and clause 4.38 principally as conditions of admission. Against that background the Administrative Court concluded that paragraphs 1 and 2 were properly understood as limited to admission terms (and possibly to retention of membership) but not as extending to the separate statutory concept of member benefits or rights such as voting and meeting attendance. The prohibition of clause 4.38 was read narrowly as applying to that clause itself pending its removal. Given that some alleged breaches had been rectified and that the order did not clearly extend to the rights exercised by admitted members, the application for committal could not succeed. The court confined its determination to these preliminary issues and noted it had not decided whether the BNP’s constitution might infringe the Equality Act 2010 on a different basis.

The application for committal was dismissed in respect of the preliminary issues decided. The court held that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order are to be read as directed to the terms on which persons are admitted to membership (and not, without clearer language, to the separate rights of members once admitted); the prohibition of clause 4.38 was construed narrowly as applying to that clause itself pending its removal. For these reasons a clear breach justifying committal was not established and the committal application could not succeed; the matter was remitted for directions to determine the future course of the proceedings.

The dispute originated in the Central London County Court where HHJ Collins made an order on 12 March 2010. The Commission applied to the county court on 7 June 2010 for committal and other relief; concerns about jurisdiction to order sequestration led to transfer of aspects of the matter to the High Court. Directions were given by Nicola Davies J on 7 September 2010 and the Administrative Court (Moore-Bick LJ and Ramsey J) heard the matter on 8–9 November 2010, delivering judgment on 17 December 2010. Neutral citation: [2010] EWHC 3343 (Admin).