UK Independence Party Ltd & Anor v Hardy

Membership of a political party or other association is contractual. Expulsion or suspension is lawful only if the governing rules confer the power, prescribed procedures are followed, and natural justice is observed. A branch chairman cannot impose an indefinite ban on participation where disciplinary authority lies elsewhere; such a ban may amount to suspension and breach the membership contract. An officer acting only as the organisation’s agent is not personally liable where the organisation accepts responsibility. An unincorporated branch is not a corporate defendant. Judicial-review concepts of proportionality and reasonableness do not replace construction of the private contract and its procedural safeguards.

Alan Hardy brought proceedings against Gordon Parkin after being banned from attending meetings of his local UK Independence Party branch. He later brought separate proceedings against UKIP after his membership renewal subscription was rejected. The proceedings were consolidated, and the branch was joined as an additional defendant during the trial.

His Honour Judge Fox QC held that the Constitution and Rules contained no power to exclude Mr Hardy in the circumstances, that his membership had been wrongfully suspended and terminated, and that UKIP, Mr Parkin and the branch were liable for £750, with a declaration confirming membership. UKIP and Mr Parkin appealed. The central issues were the branch’s procedural status, Mr Parkin’s personal liability, the authority to impose the ban, the effect of the correspondence concerning renewal, and the relevance of reasonableness and proportionality.

Sir Mark Potter gave the judgment, with which Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Ward agreed.

1. Disposition. Mr Parkin’s appeal was allowed and the judgment against him was set aside. The judgment was also set aside insofar as it applied to the Stockton-on-Tees Branch. UKIP’s appeal was dismissed, subject to consequential amendments to the order.
2. Membership and discipline. UKIP’s relationship with its members was contractual and governed by its Constitution and Rules. The governing rules conferred no disciplinary function on the Branch Committee. Discipline was assigned to the central Discipline Committee, and branch disputes were subject to the procedures in Rule 7. The general principle stated in John v Rees [1970] Ch 345 and Dawkins v Antrobus [1881] LR 17 615 was applicable: expulsion or suspension required a contractual power, compliance with the prescribed procedure and observance of natural justice.
3. The ban. Mr Parkin’s letter imposed a summary and indefinite prohibition on Mr Hardy’s participation in branch affairs. It effectively suspended membership rights. The chairman had no authority under the Constitution or Rules to impose it, and none of the procedural safeguards had been invoked. The ban therefore breached the membership contract and natural justice.
4. Liability and expulsion. Mr Parkin acted as branch chairman and agent of UKIP, not in a personal contractual capacity. UKIP accepted responsibility for his acts, so there was no basis for personal judgment against Mr Parkin. Expulsion was not a term of art. It described termination against the member’s will, while suspension described interruption or removal of membership rights short of termination. The cumulative effect of the correspondence, including the refusal to accept renewal and the requirement of a fresh application, amounted to a purported expulsion by UKIP and justified the declaration and damages.
5. Branch joinder. The branch had no corporate identity and was an unincorporated association of individual members. Although such members might potentially be sued under Rule 19.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, they had not been given an opportunity to consider or answer the claim. Joinder was unnecessary in any event because UKIP accepted liability.
6. Reasonableness and proportionality. The submission that judicial-review concepts of reasonableness and proportionality were not the governing standards for a private membership contract was correct. The contractual construction, procedural requirements and natural justice independently determined the appeal. The judge’s additional consideration of those concepts did not assist UKIP.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2011] EWCA Civ 1204, allowed Mr Parkin’s appeal, set aside the judgment against him, removed the judgment against the Stockton-on-Tees Branch, and dismissed UKIP’s appeal.
2. Middlesbrough District Registry — His Honour Judge Fox QC, judgment dated 15 November 2010, found wrongful exclusion from UKIP membership, awarded £750 against the defendants, and declared that Mr Hardy remained a member upon payment of the subscription.