Key Facts
- •Prospect, a trade union, sued Andrew Evans for defamation and malicious falsehood.
- •Evans argued that trade unions lack standing to sue for defamation.
- •The case centered on the interpretation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
- •The defendant's application was made under CPR 11 and later CPR 3.4
Legal Principles
A defendant can apply for a declaration that the court lacks jurisdiction (CPR 11).
Civil Procedure Rules 11(1)
The question of locus standi in judicial review goes to the court's jurisdiction.
R v Secretary of State for Social Security ex p Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 QB 540
A claimant lacking 'sufficient interest' lacks standing in judicial review; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(3)
A statement of case can be struck out if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a)).
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(a)
Consolidation Acts should be interpreted without recourse to antecedents unless there's ambiguity (Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59).
Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59
Trade unions have quasi-corporate status; capable of suing and being sued in their own name (Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.10).
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.10
A judgment against a trade union is enforceable against its trust property (Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.12(2)).
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s.12(2)
Defamation actions are personal, requiring a personality to be defamed.
Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd [1980] 1 QB 585
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd held it's against public interest for local authorities to sue for defamation.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770, [1993] AC 534
A partnership, lacking separate legal personality, can sue for defamation.
Meyer & Co v Faber (No.2) [1923] 2 Ch 421
Outcomes
The defendant's application to strike out the libel claim or declare lack of jurisdiction was dismissed.
The court found that the 1992 Act implicitly authorizes trade unions to sue in defamation, despite not being bodies corporate. The court rejected the EETPU case precedent based on changes in legislation and reasoned that a trade union's distinct reputation justifies the right to sue.