UK Independence Party Ltd & Anor v Hardy

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the relationship between a political party and its members is contractual and governed by the party's constitution and rules. The court held that neither the UKIP Constitution nor the Branch Rules authorised a chairman to summarily exclude a member without invoking the disciplinary procedures provided at national level (clauses 14 and 15 of the Constitution) or complying with the requirements of natural justice. The judge below was correct to find that UKIP, through its officers, had effectively prevented renewal of the appellant's membership and thereby wrongfully interfered with his membership rights; damages of £750 were properly awarded for that interference. However, the court found error in joining the local Stockton-on-Tees Branch as a defendant and in entering judgment personally against the Branch chairman, Mr Parkin, because the Branch had no separate corporate identity and Mr Parkin acted as agent of the Party.

This dispute arose from internecine conflict within the Stockton-on-Tees Branch of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The respondent, Mr Alan Hardy, a member since 2007, was told by the Branch chairman, Mr Gordon Parkin, by letter dated 11 September 2009 that he would no longer be permitted to attend Branch meetings and was advised to resign. Mr Hardy issued proceedings against Mr Parkin seeking a declaration that the ban was unlawful and claiming damages; he also issued proceedings against UKIP after Head Office declined to process his membership renewal in the ordinary way.

Nature of the claims:

• A declaration that the chairman had no power to ban Mr Hardy from meetings and that the Party had wrongfully excluded him from membership.
• Damages for wrongful exclusion/ interference with membership rights.

Procedural posture: The two actions were consolidated and tried before His Honour Judge Fox QC (Middlesbrough). The judge concluded that the Constitution and Rules did not permit the summary exclusion or suspension seen in this case, that natural justice had not been observed, and that UKIP had wrongfully prevented renewal of Mr Hardy's membership; he awarded £750 and ordered judgment against Mr Parkin, UKIP and the Stockton branch. The judge had belatedly joined the Branch as a defendant. UKIP appealed.

Issues framed and court’s reasoning:

• Whether the Constitution and Rules authorised summary exclusion or suspension by a Branch chairman: the court held they did not; disciplinary powers were vested in the national Disciplinary Committee under clauses 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and there were no Branch-level disciplinary procedures.
• Whether natural justice and procedural safeguards had been observed: the court accepted the trial judge’s finding that they had not been observed.
• Whether the Branch could be sued as a separate corporate entity and whether the chairman could be personally liable: the court held that the local Branch had no corporate identity and could not be joined as a defendant in that form, and that Mr Parkin acted as agent of UKIP so personal judgment against him was not sustainable.

Disposition: The Court of Appeal set aside the joinder of the Stockton-on-Tees Branch and set aside the judgment against Mr Parkin personally, but dismissed UKIP’s appeal on the merits so that the finding of wrongful exclusion and the award against UKIP remained. The award of damages of £750 for interference with membership rights was left untouched.

Appeal allowed in part. The Court of Appeal dismissed UKIP's challenge to the trial judge's substantive findings that UKIP had wrongfully interfered with Mr Hardy's membership (breach of the Constitution and Rules and failure to observe natural justice) and that damages of £750 were appropriate, but the court set aside the joinder of the Stockton-on-Tees Branch (it had no separate corporate identity) and allowed the appeal of Mr Parkin to remove personal liability, on the basis that he acted as agent of the Party.

Appeal from His Honour Judge Fox QC (Recorder of Middlesbrough), judgment dated 15 November 2010, Middlesbrough District Registry. Permission to appeal initially refused on paper by Lord Justice Elias; oral application to the Court of Appeal granted by Lord Justice Ward on condition no order for costs against the respondent. Appeal heard 21 July 2011 in the Court of Appeal; judgment handed down 26 October 2011, neutral citation [2011] EWCA Civ 1204.