The National Union of Mineworkers v Organisation Internationale De L'Energie Et Des Mines

A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service but does not make a qualifying jurisdiction application within the period specified by CPR Part 11 is treated as having accepted the court’s jurisdiction. A fund established for purposes extending beyond the general purposes of a trade union is not necessarily beneficially owned by that union. An arrangement under which one party funds litigation for another may require the recipient to account for recoveries, subject to recoupment of unreimbursed litigation expenses. Where the obligation to account arises on receipt of each tranche of recovery, limitation runs separately from each receipt. The accounting party bears the burden of proving claimed deductions.

The National Union of Mineworkers brought proceedings against the Organisation Internationale de L’Energie et des Mines concerning sums recovered from Roger Windsor following litigation in France and England. The proceedings had been funded in part by the NUM, while the Defendant conducted the recovery proceedings.

The Defendant disputed the NUM’s status as a trade union, challenged jurisdiction, relied on limitation and asserted that a 1990 release agreement excluded the NUM’s claim. The central issues were the parties’ contractual and equitable rights in the recoveries, the allocation of unreimbursed litigation costs, and the extent to which the claim was time-barred.

1. Status and jurisdiction. The NUM was a trade union. Its inclusion on the Certification Officer’s list was evidence of that status under section 2(4) of the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, supplemented by credible membership evidence. The Defendant’s earlier application had been confined to limitation and the Release Agreement. It was not an application within CPR Part 11, so the Defendant was treated as having accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
2. MACF and the 1986 assignment. The Miners Action Committee fund was not beneficially owned by the NUM. Its purposes were distinct from the NUM’s general purposes and extended to alleviating hardship in mining communities. The 1984 repayment of Mr Windsor’s loan from that fund was therefore effective. The NUM was not a party to the 1986 assignment from the fund to the IMO, and no detailed assignment agreement or term placing any recovery shortfall on the IMO was established.
3. 1990 arrangement. The parties agreed that the IMO would continue the Windsor litigation, that the NUM would reimburse the IMO’s expenses, and that recoveries would be paid to the NUM subject to the IMO’s recoupment of expenditure not already reimbursed. The risk of a shortfall therefore fell on the NUM. The IMO Declaration recorded intention but did not create a trust, and did not displace the IMO’s entitlement to indemnification from recoveries.
4. Limitation and accounting. The obligation to account arose when each tranche of recovery was received. The claim concerning £300 received under the first attachment of earnings order was statute-barred, but claims concerning later receipts were brought in time.
5. Disposition. The Defendant had to account for recoveries, subject to deductions proved to relate to unreimbursed litigation expenditure. The court allowed deductions totalling £77,828.74 and ordered payment of a further £60,881.97, together with accounting for later recoveries.