JOSEPHINE MARY HAYES v DR MARK PACK & Ors

An interim injunction may be granted before proceedings are issued only where the matter is sufficiently urgent or the remedy is otherwise desirable in the interests of justice. A party’s failure to issue proceedings despite having ample time will ordinarily defeat reliance on urgency.

The merits threshold for interim relief is not determined mechanically by classifying an injunction as prohibitory or mandatory. The required degree of assurance depends on the order sought, the balance of convenience and the consequences of granting or refusing relief. An injunction against a political party is not subject to a freestanding exceptionality test.

The applicant, a long-standing member of the Liberal Democrats, was expelled following a complaints-panel decision. She alleged breaches of contract, natural justice, implied duties of fairness and rationality, disproportionate sanction and bias. She sought an injunction preventing enforcement of the expulsion and protecting her ability to stand in the forthcoming election for party President.

The application was made before a claim form had been issued. The court considered whether an interim remedy could be granted before proceedings, the merits of the proposed claim and the balance of convenience.

1. Application refused. The applicant had not established that the court could grant an interim remedy before the claim was started. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 25, rule 2(b), pre-action relief requires sufficient urgency or that it is otherwise desirable in the interests of justice.
2. The applicant had been notified of her expulsion on 2 September and had ample time to issue proceedings before the hearing and before the election deadline. The urgency relied on was substantially the consequence of her own inaction. The complexity or novelty of the proposed claim did not make pre-action relief desirable; it made the identification of the claim by a claim form and particulars more important.
3. Assuming that pre-action relief was available, the ordinary principles in American Cyanamid applied. The merits threshold is linked to the balance of convenience, the precise order sought and the consequences of granting or refusing it. The prohibitory or mandatory classification of an injunction, and whether it would determine the proceedings, are relevant factors but do not create inflexible categories.
4. There was no freestanding rule that an injunction against a political party could be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The cases relied on concerned the consequences of relief on their particular facts, which required strong countervailing features before the balance could be altered.
5. The applicant had a strong arguable case that membership of the party was contractual and that disciplinary proceedings were subject to natural justice and implied duties of fairness and rationality. However, she had not shown that she was likely to succeed in establishing that the panel’s decision was contractually or procedurally flawed. The alleged errors were largely evaluative or factual, were not shown to be material to the outcome, or were unsupported by evidence of bias.
6. The balance of convenience also favoured refusal. The applicant would suffer significant, largely irreparable prejudice if unable to stand for election. But reinstatement would require the parties to operate amid a breakdown of trust and confidence, and participation in the election could cause political, reputational and practical damage that could not readily be undone. Since the applicant was not likely to succeed at trial, the balance fell strongly against relief.

First-instance decision. The court refused permission to appeal.