Ramsay v Pain & Ors

An applicant seeking a quia timet injunction must establish an imminent danger of very substantial damage. A mandatory interim injunction may require a high degree of assurance that the applicant will succeed at trial. In a political-party case, the balance-of-convenience approach associated with American Cyanamid may be inappropriate. Membership of an unincorporated association is contractual, but membership does not ordinarily confer a contractual right to selection as a parliamentary candidate. Contractual discretionary powers generally require honesty and rationality; public-law principles, including natural justice, are not automatically implied. Where association rules permit members to summon a meeting, the meeting is summoned by the members rather than the chairman.

The intended claimant, a member and prospective parliamentary candidate, applied before issuing proceedings for an injunction preventing a special general meeting of the Monmouth Conservative Association and for disclosure concerning a petition. The proposed claim alleged breach of contract and breach of data-protection rules.

The intended claimant abandoned the injunction application before the hearing and sought only his costs. The court nevertheless considered whether the application would have succeeded and determined responsibility for the costs of the application.

1. The intended claimant’s application, had it been pursued, would have failed. A quia timet injunction required proof of an imminent danger of very substantial damage. The proposed meeting was only to consider calling a later meeting, and the claimant would not immediately be deselected. The necessary imminence was therefore absent (paras [4]–[7], [18]).
2. The court noted that the balance-of-convenience aspect of American Cyanamid might not be appropriate in a political case, following the observation in Lewis v Heffer [1978] 1 WLR 1061. A mandatory injunction concerning information might additionally require a high degree of assurance of success at trial, as stated in Seecomm Network Services v Colt Telecommunications [2002] EWHC 2638 (Ch) (para [8]).
3. The data-protection claim was weak. Processing connected with tasks carried out in the public interest could include activity supporting or promoting democratic engagement. Political parties’ provision of parliamentary candidates fell within that description. The claimant had no apparent right under section 157 of the Data Protection Act, or under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, to obtain the requested information (paras [9]–[11], [18]).
4. Membership of an unincorporated association and its benefits arise from contract contained in the association’s rules. However, prospective candidacy did not give the claimant a contractual right to remain the selected candidate. The court relied on Gardner v Newstead, Ch D, unreported, 18 February 1997 (paras [12], [17]).
5. Rule 10.1.2 gave more than 50 members the contractual right to summon the meeting. The chairman’s role was to arrange for the meeting to occur. The decision was therefore not a discretionary decision of the chairman or the association as a whole (para [14]). The principles in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 1661 had no real application; even if relevant, they did not import all public-law requirements, including natural justice. Honesty and rationality might be required where a contractual discretion existed, but selection of a parliamentary candidate was not a disciplinary process requiring a hearing (paras [15]–[17]).
6. Under rule 44.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the intended defendant was the successful party. The intended claimant was ordered to pay the intended defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the application (paras [19]–[23]).