Nattrass v UK Independence Party

Courts should require exceptional circumstances before interfering with the candidate-selection process of a political party. Detailed express rules governing selection will not ordinarily be supplemented by implied terms where implication is unnecessary to give the arrangements business efficacy or obviousness. A claimant must also show a serious basis for alleging breach and demonstrate the likely significance of the alleged defect. Even where damages would be unattractive, the balance of convenience may favour allowing a time-sensitive political process to continue, particularly where an injunction would disrupt the rights of selected candidates and require the process to be repeated.

Michael Nattrass, a sitting UK Independence Party member of the European Parliament, was not among the 60 candidates selected to proceed to a national party ballot for the 2014 European Parliament elections. He sought an interim injunction restraining the party from conducting the ballot.

His initial complaint concerning the constitution of the National Selection Panel had been cured by ratification. The remaining claim alleged implied contractual terms requiring fairness, objective criteria, an opportunity to address matters materially affecting suitability, and consistent application of criteria. The central issues were whether those terms should be implied, whether there was a serious issue as to breach, and where the balance of convenience lay.

1. Application refused. The injunction restraining UKIP from conducting its membership ballot was declined.
2. The party’s detailed rule book governed the candidate-selection process and had been accepted by candidates entering the process. Its express provisions, including the requirement for an independent recruitment company and detailed arrangements for assessment and interview, were sufficient. Further implied terms requiring fairness, objective criteria, opportunities to address adverse matters, and consistency were unnecessary to give the arrangements business efficacy or because of obviousness.
3. The claimant had not shown a sufficiently serious case that the alleged implied terms had been breached. In particular, he had not come close to establishing that he would or should have been selected had the process been conducted differently.
4. The process was a comparative political assessment, not a judicial process subject to natural justice. A requirement to put every matter that might conceivably count against a candidate would create substantial practical difficulties and could require all candidates to comment on the weaknesses of others.
5. Although damages would be unattractive because of loss-of-chance and proof difficulties, the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the ballot to proceed. An injunction would infringe the apparent contractual rights of the 60 selected candidates, none of whom was before the court, and could require the selection process to be repeated. Following the approach in Choudhry v Triesman [2003] EWHC 1203 (Ch), exceptional circumstances were required before the court interfered with a political party’s selection process. No such circumstances, including corruption or comparable misconduct, were present.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.