Prospect v Andrew Evans

A trade union has sufficient legal personality and a distinct reputation to sue in defamation in its own name. Section 10 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 confers that capacity, and the prohibition on treating a union as a body corporate does not remove it. The statutory authorisation may be express or implied.

The earlier decision in Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd was erroneous and should not be followed. A trade union is distinguishable from a governmental local authority for public-interest purposes. A challenge to the claimant’s entitlement to sue is properly made under CPR 3.4(2)(a), not CPR 11.

Prospect, a trade union, brought claims in defamation and malicious falsehood against a former member. The defendant applied under CPR 11 for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction because a trade union lacked standing to sue in defamation. He later relied on CPR 3.4(2)(a), and alternatively argued that public policy should prevent a trade union from suing.

The central issue was whether sections 10 and related provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 prevent a trade union from maintaining a defamation claim in its own name.

1. Procedural route. The court had jurisdiction to determine the claim. If the trade union lacked a right to sue in defamation, the appropriate route would be strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), because the statement of case would disclose no reasonable grounds. CPR 11 was not the proper route for that substantive challenge.
2. Construction of the 1992 Act. Applying Farrell v Alexander, the starting point was the natural and ordinary meaning of the consolidation Act, without recourse to earlier legislation unless real ambiguity or doubt arose. Section 10(1) expressly enables a trade union to contract and to sue and be sued in its own name in any cause of action. Those provisions give it sufficient personality to protect its distinct reputation.
3. Section 10(2) prevents a union being treated as a body corporate except to the extent authorised by Part I. That exception is not confined to section 12(2). It includes express or implied authorisation. For the purposes of suing and being sued, Parliament has impliedly authorised treatment of a trade union as a quasi-corporation.
4. The conclusion in Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd that the 1974 Act removed a trade union’s capacity to sue in libel was erroneous. The later wording, the statutory scheme, and the removal of the former immunity from defamation claims reinforced that conclusion. In any event, corporate personality is not essential: a partnership may sue in its firm name for injury to the partnership’s reputation.
5. The public-interest argument failed. Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd concerned governmental bodies and did not justify extending the local-authority rule to trade unions. The claimant was therefore entitled to sue in libel.
6. The application to strike out the defamation claim, alternatively for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction, was dismissed. No determination was made on the unargued malicious-falsehood point.