KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Josephine Hayes |
Applicant/ Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
(1) Dr Mark Pack (2) Duncan Curley, Alexandra Simpson and Serena Tierney |
Respondents/ Defendants |
____________________
Richard Mott and Lauren Hitchman (instructed by DTM Legal) for the respondents /defendants
Hearing dates: 9 December 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Dexter Dias :
A. Introduction
B. Appealed decisions
C. Renewal hearing
D. Introductory remarks
"The Court considers that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; or
There is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard."
"the appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was (a) wrong; or
(b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court".
"It was not in dispute between the parties in this case that various statements made, prior to the collective agreement, as explanations for employees of the express term in question, were admissible as aids to interpretation of that express term.
…
"However, had it been necessary to do so, we would have regarded the pre-contractual material relied on as coming within the exception that explanatory material can be admissible in interpreting a contract: see Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts, 8th ed (2024) ["Lewison"], paras 3.38 – 3.42, citing, inter alia, the reliance on the explanatory notes that accompanied the contract in ICS."
"notes must also be distinguished from the parties' subjective declarations of intent, which are inadmissible."
"Where, in the course of the negotiations for a contract, one of the prospective parties states a fact or expresses an opinion, it will be held to be a term of the contract (or a collateral contract) if the totality of the evidence shows that such was the intention of the parties."
"Representative parties with same interest
19.8
(1) Where more than one person has the same interest in a claim –
(a) the claim may be begun; or
(b) the court may order that the claim be continued,
by or against one or more of the persons who have the same interest as representatives of any other persons who have that interest."
"59. If it were thought necessary to obtain a judgment which is formally binding on every employee, the representative procedure available under CPR Part 19 is designed for just this purpose: see Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50; [2022] AC 1217. That procedure was used without any apparent difficulty in a case recently decided by this court involving a dispute about the meaning and effect of terms incorporated from a collective agreement into contracts of employment: see Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers [2024] UKSC 28. We see no reason why that procedure could not be used here."
"The Defendants shall notify the members of the Party that issues of common interest to all members concerning the membership contract and the complaints procedure have arisen and accordingly the Court is minded to appoint one or more members of the Party as additional Defendant or Defendants to this claim to act as Ordinary Members' Representative, and invite expressions of willingness to be appointed, such responses to be received within seven days.
Not less than seven days after such notification the Court will appoint such member or members, if any, as respond to the notification expressing willingness to be appointed as Ordinary Members' Representative provided that the Court is satisfied they are without conflict of interest with the Ordinary Members in these proceedings."
E. Appeal 1
Ground 1
"This Constitution may only be altered:
A. by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting at the Federal Conference."
"Business Motion F11 is littered with references to expressions of belief, recommendations, and conference notes. Such language is inconsistent with the creation of an express contractual term or indeed an implied term. Business Motion F11 is better described as an expression of the conference attendees' subjective hopes about the future."
Ground 2
Ground 3
Ground 4
Ground 5
Ground 6
Ground 7
Conclusion: Appeal 1
F. Appeal 2
Ground 1
Ground 2
Grounds 3-5
Ground 6
"The proposed amended prayer simply bears no relation to the pleaded case in respect of breach of contract. It would be wholly disproportionate to reopen the pleadings and bring a host of unrelated topics and unrelated events to a claim that was issued some 21 months ago and which is set for a trial in February 2025. Those amendments would simply seek to reintroduce matters already determined by this court in the judgment of 8th May."
"If allowed to stand the knock-on effect of these paragraphs would be to sidetrack the litigation leading to significant waste of resource on disclosure, witness evidence, trial time, trial timetabling, and the like, all to address matters which do not go to the issues in hand or the remedy sought. This cannot be in line with the overriding objective. Indeed, it is noted that Master McCloud has already felt a need to recuse herself from this case following misconceived criticism of her involvement in this case which, at paragraph 12.13 of the particulars of claim, purports to involve gender-critical issues when clearly the claimant's case has nothing to do with gender-related arguments."
Ground 7
Conclusion: Appeal 2
G. Application to adjourn
H. Disposal
(1) Permission to appeal the decisions in Judgment 1 (Appeal 1: KA-2024-000104) is refused on all seven grounds advanced;
(2) Permission to appeal the decisions in Judgment 2 (Appeal 2: KA-2024-000152) is refused on all seven grounds advanced;
(3) The application to adjourn the trial is dismissed;
(4) An agreed draft order to reflect the terms of this judgment and the court's decisions at the PTR to be filed with the court by 4 pm, 13 December 2024;
(5) Costs of the PTR to be costs in the case, subject to the costs reasonably incurred by the adjournment application and reasonable preparation to meet it.