United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd (UKIP) v Braine & Ors

On a summary judgment application, the court must decide whether the claim has a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. It must avoid a mini-trial, but need not accept factual assertions contradicted by contemporaneous evidence. An inference of serious wrongdoing requires a sufficient pleaded and evidential foundation. Potential disclosure cannot rescue an unsustainable claim. A party may communicate with members using a party database where the communication is for an official party purpose and is authorised by the governing rules. Company-law duties owed by a director who holds office because of a political leadership role must be assessed in the context of the party’s constitution and rules, although an arguable lack of power may require trial.

The claimant, the operating company of the UK Independence Party, brought claims against its former Leader and Deputy Leader arising from a factional dispute concerning elections to the party’s National Executive Committee. It alleged misuse of the party database, unauthorised access to private email accounts, breach of confidence, breach of statutory directors’ duties, conspiracy, and infringement of database rights.

The defendants applied to strike out the claims or obtain summary judgment. The claimant applied to replace its Particulars of Claim. The court considered whether the pleaded claims had a realistic prospect of success, including whether the alleged email-data breach and blackmail could properly be inferred from the evidence.

1. Summary judgment and amendment. The court applied the Part 24 principles in Global Asset Capital Inc v Aabar Block SARL [2017] EWCA Civ 37. The claimant had to show a realistic prospect of success. The court avoided a mini-trial, but was not required to accept assertions contradicted by contemporaneous documents. Serious wrongdoing could not be inferred without a sufficient prior evidential foundation. The proposed amendment was subject to the same realistic-prospect test.
2. Database use. The governing Constitution and Rules did not give the Chairman exclusive control of the database or prevent the Leader from communicating with members. Rule J.1.6 authorised use of the party database for official party purposes. Sending members the list of prospective NEC candidates was therefore lawful, notwithstanding the internal dispute about the list. The database-related claim based on that communication could not succeed.
3. Inbox data and blackmail allegations. The claimant had no evidence that data had been downloaded. The available audit material did not show exfiltration, and the evidence and surrounding circumstances provided no proper basis for inferring that the defendants obtained the alleged Inbox data or sent the BB Email. Disclosure could not be invoked to create an evidential case that did not already exist.
4. Conspiracy and directors’ duties. The conspiracy allegations lacked an arguable case of intention to injure or combination. The claims under sections 172, 173 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006 were fanciful because the director’s conduct had to be assessed in the context of his elected political role and the party’s constitutional framework. The alleged breach of section 171, concerning the purported suspension of the Chairman and NEC, was sufficiently arguable to proceed.
5. Permission to amend was refused except for the section 171 claim against the former Leader. That claim was to be particularised as to quantum and transferred to the County Court if pursued, after a one-month stay for mediation. All other claims were dismissed and struck out.