Barnett v Walker & Ors

An unincorporated association’s constitution governs the contractual relationship between its members. The court may intervene to protect contractual rights, including rights arising from a political party’s constitution, although it should avoid managing the party’s internal affairs. A claim concerning rights shared by the membership must ordinarily be brought representatively. Pleadings must identify the precise constitutional provision, amendment procedure and breach relied on, and must link each alleged breach to the remedy sought. Serious pleading defects may justify striking out the particulars of claim, but an opportunity to replead should be given where a coherent claim may be possible.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning the constitution and management of the British National Party, an unincorporated association. He sought declarations and mandatory injunctions relating to constitutional amendments, meetings, officers, governance and party finances. Several applications were before the court, including applications for default judgment, strike-out, summary judgment, joinder of an additional claimant, and relief from sanctions.

The defendants argued that the claim was abusive, non-representative, improperly brought against the party itself, barred by the claimant’s membership status and constitutional provisions, and displaced by the Electoral Commission’s statutory powers. The central issues were whether the claim could proceed in contract and whether the pleading disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing it.

1. Jurisdiction and capacity. The claim was not an abuse merely because it arose from a factional dispute within a political party. The court’s jurisdiction to intervene was founded on protection of contractual rights. The claimant’s membership and suspension raised sufficiently complex and arguable factual and legal issues to be unsuitable for summary determination.
2. The constitutional provisions purporting to prevent members from bringing proceedings without the Chairman’s consent were reasonably arguable as contrary to public policy and void. Alleged breaches of confidentiality, good faith or indemnity obligations did not, without more, prevent the claimant bringing his own contractual claim.
3. The existence of the Electoral Commission’s regulatory powers under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 did not oust the court’s jurisdiction over a private contractual claim concerning party management or finances.
4. The claim concerned rights shared by the membership and therefore had to proceed, if at all, as a representative action. The British National Party, being an unincorporated association and not a legal entity, could not be sued in its own name.
5. The particulars of claim were seriously defective. They failed to identify the complained-of constitutional amendments, the applicable amendment procedure, the precise breaches, and the connection between the alleged breaches and the mandatory remedies sought. The allegation that party funds had been misused for private purposes appeared to allege fraud and required distinct and precise particularisation.
6. The application under CPR 24.2 failed because the application notice and supporting evidence did not contain the statement required by Practice Direction 24. The particulars of claim were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), but the claimant was given an opportunity to replead. The court emphasised that the observations made were not an exhaustive checklist.
7. The application for default judgment and the claimant’s application to strike out the defence were dismissed. The joinder application was adjourned pending a fresh draft pleading. If necessary, relief from sanctions for late service of the defence would be granted.