Jeffers v The Labour Party

This litigation arises out of an acrimonious dispute between members of the executive committee of an organisation known as “Black Asian Minority Ethnic Labour”, commonly known as BAME Labour. As its name suggests BAME Labour is an organisation which exists to promote the support of Black, Asian and other ethnic minority groups for the principles and policies of the Defendant.

The Claimant is the secretary of BAME Labour. She has brought these proceedings both on her own behalf and on behalf of all other members of BAME Labour. She has done so essentially because she believes that the executive committee is hopelessly split and that the Defendant is wrongfully interfering in the affairs of BAME Labour. Before considering her complaints in detail, it is necessary to set out the relevant history which has led to the unhappy state of affairs whereby supposed allies have resorted to contested litigation.

Over many years a number of -6organisations with the same basic aim as BAME Labour have come into existence. For one reason or another those organisations foundered. In late 2006 an organisation known as the Black Socialist Society was launched. This society was the immediate predecessor to BAME Labour. It adopted a constitution. Under the constitution provision was made for the election of an executive committee consisting of 15 members. Four of the members of the executive committee would be elected as chair, vice-chair, secretary and treasurer.

Elections to the executive committee took place in March 2007. The Claimant was elected secretary; Mr Ahmad Shahzad and Mr Muhammad Afzal were elected, respectively, chair and treasurer. It is common ground that the elections were organised by the Defendant in accordance with a timetable devised by the Defendant.

In November 2007 the Black Socialist Society changed its name to BAME Labour. It is now accepted by the Claimant that BAME Labour adopted the constitution which had been adopted, first, by the Black Socialist Society.

BAME Labour is an unincorporated association. It is also an affiliated organisation under the rules of the Defendant. As an affiliated organisation it must (a) accept the programme, policy and principles of the Defendant, (b) agree to conform to the constitution and standing orders of the Defendant and (c) submit its political rules to the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Defendant. Under the Defendant’s rules it is possible for a member of BAME Labour to become a member of the NEC of the Defendant provided certain criteria are met.

The BAME Labour constitution provides for a bi-annual meeting/conference. It proceeds on the basis that the executive committee will serve for a period of 2 years between each meeting/conference. Elections for the executive committee will be timed so that the result of any election can be declared at the bi-annual meeting/conference. At a meeting of the executive committee on 30 November 2008 there was a discussion of the arrangements for the election to the executive committee which would precede the bi-annual conference scheduled to take place in March 2009. The minutes of the meeting record the following:-

“5.

BAME Labour AGM

Roy Kennedy, Director of Finance and Compliance [of the Defendant] joined the meeting and informed the executive members of the process for electing a new executive team at BAME Labour’s AGM.

He explained that the AGM will take place in March 2009 and all elections would be conducted by a postal ballot. Papers will be counted a day before the AGM in time for an announcement to be made at the event itself.

The chair agreed to circulate a copy of BAME Labour’s constitution to the executive committee.”

It seems probable that a document was either tabled or explained at this meeting. This was a document produced by an official of the Defendant which set out the timetable for the election. The document specified that relevant mail would be sent to members relating to the election on 14 December 2008, the closing date for nominations would be 18 January 2009 and ballot papers would be sent out to eligible members and affiliates on 15 February 2009. The document setting out this timetable also had a date for freezing membership applications. That was to be 18 January 2009. The effect of such a freeze was that no person could become a member of BAME Labour and be entitled to vote in the election between 18 January 2009 and the close of the ballot.

The election for the executive committee and the officers thereof was conducted in accordance with this timetable. No one objected to this course. The Claimant was re-elected as secretary and Mr Shahzad and Mr Afzal were re-elected chair and treasurer.

In 2008 and early 2009 BAME Labour was heavily dependant upon officers of the Defendant in relation to the running of its affairs. By the summer of 2009, however, there had been progress towards BAME Labour acting more independently. On 26 June 2009 Ms Alicia Kennedy, the Defendant’s Deputy General Secretary, sent an email to Mr Shahzad and the deputy chair Ms Dora Dixon-Fyle. The pertinent part of the email is as follows:-

“Dear Ahmad and Dora

Thanks for coming in to meet earlier, I hope you found it helpful. Please find a summary of what we discussed in terms of moving forward and supporting BAME Labour.

Administration

It was agreed that BAME Labour is now in a position to handle its own administrative functions, so will now set its own meetings and agendas, distribute committee papers ahead of meetings, and organise events. I have attached the email addresses of the BAME Labour exec I have to date.

Please invite Sarah Mulholland to all of your events and she will continue to attend your meetings and offer support where necessary.

This will go into effect immediately, with the committee organising and informing members about the next meeting.

The Party will retain its current role in managing membership, local societies, accounting, elections and all compliance issues.

Sarah will update WREC regarding this new arrangement.”

I do not know whether there was any reply to this email. However, no one has suggested that the contents of the email sent by Ms Kennedy did not correspond with what had been discussed at the meeting attended by Mr Shahzad, Ms Dickson-Fyle and Ms Kennedy.

The email mentions Sarah Mulholland. She had become the Defendant’s National Women’s and Equality Officer in June 2009. From that time to the present she has had significant dealings with BAME Labour.

There is a comparative dearth of evidence about the affairs of BAME Labour between June 2009 and July 2010. It seems clear, however, that during this period relations between members of the executive committee began to sour and, unhappily, two factions formed. One faction favoured much greater independence from the Defendant; the other faction was content for the Defendant to play a leading role in the administration of BAME Labour.

I pick up the story in July 2010. An executive committee meeting was scheduled for 15 July. Either on the day before or on the 15^th itself Councillor Zahida Noori circulated an emergency motion to some members of the executive committee. Part of the motion related to leadership hustings scheduled to take place on 19 July 2010. The motion also sought a resolution “that from now on BAME Labour should conduct its own day-to-day business by maintaining a bank account, membership lists, local societies and holding societies’ elections.”

At the meeting Councillor Noori tabled both parts of his emergency motion. The minutes of the meeting produced by the Claimant record that the second part of the motion was withdrawn as it did not qualify as an emergency motion. It is clear that there was a great deal of bad feeling engendered at the meeting.

As a consequence, on 23 July 2010 three members of the executive committee made a formal complaint to Mr Ray Collins, the General Secretary of the Labour Party. The complaint related to the fact that an emergency motion had been tabled without proper notice. However, it also related to the conduct of Mr Shahzad. It was alleged that his behaviour had lacked relevant chairmanship skills and judgment and that he had been abusive, aggressive and sexist.

On 3 August 2010 the complaint was reported to officers of the NEC. The officers resolved to appoint Ms Norma Stephenson to investigate the complaint and report back to the NEC on suggested courses of action. However, the officers also resolved that pending the completion of the investigation “BAME Labour should suspend its executive meetings until after the investigation has concluded.” In practice that meant that the executive committee meeting scheduled for August 2010 would not take place. No member of the executive committee protested about this intervention by officers of the Defendant either immediately or, as far as I am aware, at all.

During the course of September 2010 Ms Stephenson undertook an investigation of the complaint. Over a period of three days she interviewed members of the executive committee who had attended the meeting which had taken place on 15 July. In total, 13 people were interviewed.

On 26 October 2010 Ms Stephenson produced her report to the organisation committee of NEC. In it, she recorded that relations between certain members of the executive committee had broken down leading to increasingly hostile meetings and communications. This hostility had peaked at the meeting of 15 July 2010. Ms Stephenson dismissed the complaint relating to the tabling of the emergency motion. She did find, however, that Mr Shahzad had behaved in a way which was not compatible with good chairmanship of an executive committee. Ms Stephenson made a number of recommendations which were in the following terms:-

“The Party has previously acted as a facilitator with administrative responsibility and should reclaim this role. This role would comprise of notifying all members in good time of meetings, attend all meetings of BAME Labour executive meetings, prepare in consultation with the executive officers the agenda for meetings and agree with the committee’s standing agenda items.

The executive, with the assistance of the Party officer should agree the following:

•

Dates for meetings for the year ahead

•

A work plan with allocated executive members for particular areas of work, or working groups

•

A procedure for the conduct of meetings

It is felt that by reinstating a proper structured reorganisation that reflects the way in which meetings are usually conducted and executive committees usually operate, should address the circumstances which led to the discord which occurred on 15 July.

The NEC does not believe that the meeting of 15 July has served to bring the Party into disrepute nor have any specific Party rules been broken, therefore no disciplinary action is recommended.”

The organisation committee of the Labour Party considered Ms Stephenson’s report. She was congratulated upon its contents. Her recommendations were accepted. The committee also considered the issue of elections to the executive committee which were due to be held in the spring of 2011. There was nothing unusual about that in the light of what had occurred when the election in 2009 had been held. A document was tabled setting out a timetable for the election and a discussion ensued about that document and about whether or not the Electoral Reform Society should conduct the count of the votes cast. The organisation committee resolved that the votes should be counted by the Electoral Reform Society and that the election should be carried out in accordance with the timetable set out in the document which had been tabled.

The timetable so agreed was that nomination papers would be sent out to members on 10 December 2010, nominations would close on 21 January 2011, ballot papers would be sent out on 3 February 2011 and that the ballot would close on 28 February 2011. The timetable also envisaged that the freeze date for membership would be 26 October 2010.

On 11 November 2010 an executive committee meeting of BAME Labour was convened. A number of the executive committee were present at the meeting; others were party to the discussion by telephone. Sarah Mulholland was present as was Ms Stephenson.

At the meeting Ms Stephenson informed the executive committee of the contents of her investigation report. She also informed the committee that the suspension relating to meetings which had been in force since 3 August 2010 was rescinded. There is no doubt that the forthcoming election was raised as a topic for discussion; that is clear from minutes prepared by the Claimant. However, there is a dispute between the parties about the extent of the discussion. However, in the end nothing turns on this dispute of fact and I say no more about it.

Some days later the Clamant wrote to the Defendant’s General Secretary. She wrote to request him “to stop any action or decisions being made by the NEC at its next meeting regarding the affairs of BAME Labour, its elections or its day to day running.” Her letter went on to record a number of complaints all of which were scrutinised in detail in cross-examination. I do not know whether she received a reply.

On 7 December 2010 Mr Shahzad sent an email to Mr Keith Vaz MP requesting details “of the NEC’s decision to announce Elections and publication of the time table including BAME Labour membership freeze date.” Mr Vaz replied immediately suggesting that Mr Shahzad discuss the issue with the Defendant’s General Secretary.

The next meeting of the executive committee took place on 9 December 2010. The Defendant asserts that this meeting was convened to discuss the arrangements for the forthcoming election. There is no doubt that a discussion about the arrangements took place. The Defendant also asserts that by the end of the discussion there was agreement amongst the majority of members of the executive committee present that the election should be conducted in accordance with the timetable approved by the organisation committee on 26 October 2010. The Claimant does not agree. Her case is that the timetable was not approved; indeed that nothing was decided at all. This factual dispute is crucial to my determination of this case. I will return to it shortly.

As of 13 December 2010 there were approximately 4000 paid up BAME Labour members. There were also a number of approved affiliated trade unions. Ms Mulholland told me that on or about 13 December a letter was sent to the paid up members and affiliated trade unions setting out the timetable for the elections to the executive committee. Those persons and organisations were also sent nomination papers so that they could, if they so chose, nominate persons for election to the executive committee. It is common ground that the Claimant was not sent the letter or nomination papers. Ms Mulholland told me that the documents were not sent to the Claimant because at that point in time the Claimant was in arrears with her membership contributions. The Claimant denies that she was in arrears. However, she does not assert that Ms Mulholland or any other official of the Defendant had any improper motive for failing to send the letter and nomination papers to her.

In accordance with the timetable allegedly agreed at the meeting of 9 December 2010 nominations were received for the membership of the executive committee. The number of candidates nominated matched the number of persons (15) required for the executive committee. Further, only one person was nominated for the offices, respectively, of chair, deputy chair, secretary and treasurer. Accordingly, an election was unnecessary. On 27 January 2011 Ms Mulholland sent out a notification by email that all the candidates nominated had been elected because they had all been unopposed.

Meanwhile lawyers had become involved. On 10 December 2010 the Claimant’s solicitors wrote a letter before action to the Defendant’s General Secretary. The letter before action was not written on behalf of the Claimant but on behalf of Mr Abdul Razak Hussain. Essentially, the complaint made on his behalf was targeted at the decision of the organisation committee made on 26 October 2010. In particular it was alleged that the committee had acted unlawfully in resolving that the freeze date should be 26 October 2010. No mention was made of the meeting which had taken place the day before.

The Defendant’s solicitors replied by letter dated 15 December 2010. A number of paragraphs of the letter are important and they are to the following effect.

“This report [the report of Miss Stephenson] was received and accepted by the organisation committee of the NEC at its meeting on 26 October and it was decided that Ms Stephenson would chair the next BAME executive meeting and provide, at that meeting, a verbal report of her findings. The organisation committee also adopted the recommendations in a paper before it concerning the elections to the BAME executive, set the timetable for those elections and imposed the freeze date of which your client complains. They did so in exercise of their powers under paragraph 4.16 of the BAME Labour constitutional rules having formed the view, in part as a result of the events which lead to Ms Stephenson’s investigation, that BAME Labour had ceased to function in accordance with its constitutional rules, in particular its duty under paragraph 4.17 to work closely with the NEC and Party staff.

As you record (your paragraph 12) Ms Stephenson reported on her findings and provided a copy of her report to the BAME executive meeting on 11 November 2010. However, she was concerned and frustrated by that meeting’s refusal (or inability) to address the agreed timetable for the election to the executive which the chair insisted on adjourning to a later occasion. (This only served to re-inforce our client in the belief that it was necessary for the NEC to take charge of the election process.) A further meeting of the BAME executive was held on 9 December and, in accordance with Ms Stephenson’s report, was attended by Sarah Mulholland, the Party’s National Women’s and Equality Officer. We understand that at that meeting there was a lively debate about the timetable set by the NEC and that a majority of the executive was content with it and with the freeze date set.

…..

We wonder whether your client may have misunderstood the effect of the freeze date decision. That decision does not disenfranchise members who may currently be ineligible to vote by reason of being in arrears with their membership subscriptions. In conformity with the paragraph 4.3 such members, on paying their subscriptions before the ballot date will be eligible. What the imposition of the freeze date does is prevent additional individuals seeking to become members, especially by reason of the encouragement or inducement by candidates, after the election process has begun. This is standard practice in the case of selection of parliamentary and local government candidates and at Chapters 19 and 20 of the Party Rule Book and, by custom of practice, in respect of election of officers of Party units.

Accordingly, in our respectful view, there is no basis for your client’s proposed claim against our clients in respect of the agreed timetable incorporating a freeze date. Further we doubt he will have standing to take proceedings against our clients, as you suggest, as a representative of all other members of BAME Labour given what we have said about the views expressed at the executive meeting on 9 December.”

On 17 January 2011 the Claimant's solicitor sent another letter to the Defendant's solicitors. By this date they were acting for the Claimant as well as Mr Hussain. The letter is long and detailed. There is nothing in it, however, to answer the assertion made by the Defendant's solicitor that the timetable and freeze date relating to the election had been agreed by the majority of members present at the meeting on 9 December 2010. Indeed, that meeting is not mentioned. In the days that ensued there was further correspondence between the respective solicitors.

On 21 January 2011 Mr Kamajeet Jandu, a member of the executive committee wrote a letter to the Claimant's solicitors. The letter was written on his own behalf and six other members of the executive committee including Mr Afzal the treasurer. It is unnecessary to quote substantial extracts from the letter. The general thrust of the letter was to support the actions which had been taken by the NEC and/or the organisation committee in relation to the affairs of BAME Labour. However, one paragraph is important:-

“For your information, at the last meeting of the BAME Labour executive held on 09.12.10, the chair of the NEC Ms Norma Stephenson, presented her report into BAME Labour along with the election timetable that the NEC had agreed. The Executive agreed this report and its recommendations, and agreed to move forward with elections as planned as per the timetable set out. In fact the only point of consensus in the committee was there should be fresh elections.”

The claim form was issued on 27 January. It was shortly followed by particulars of claim. As I have said the claim is brought by the Claimant both on her own behalf and in a representative capacity. The particulars of claim alleges that the Defendant was in breach of a contract with BAME Labour and/or it failed to act with reasonable care and skill towards BAME Labour. The central complaint relates to the fixing of the election.

Clause 2 sets out the objectives of BAME Labour. Clause 2.8 provides that BAME Labour will adhere to the rules and constitution of the Defendant. Clause 3 deals with membership. Members of BAME Labour must be (or must be eligible to be) members of the Defendant (3.2); members of BAME Labour must agree with the aims and objectives of BAME Labour (3.3) and individual members must pay an annual membership fee as determined by the bi-annual meeting/conference by BAME Labour. (3.4). An individual can be a member of BAME Labour only if the requirements of Rules 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 are met. (3.6). Clause 4 contains detailed provisions relating to the bi-annual meeting/conference and executive committee. As I have said provision is made for a bi-annual meeting/conference (4.1); all elections for BAME Labour executive and representatives to Party bodies shall be by an electoral college (4.2); voting rights will be given to those BAME Labour members/affiliates who are fully paid up with respect of their BAME Labour/affiliation fee at the time the ballot is sent out. Clause 4.6 is in the following terms:-

“Nomination papers for all elections will be sent out (4.3) by the secretary in accordance with the timetable approved by the executive and the organisation committee of the NEC. Nominations can be made for the whole executive, including the officer positions and the representatives on Party bodies.”

Clause 4.14 provides that the bi-annual meeting/conference shall decide all matters including appointment of the two delegates to the annual Labour Party Conference. Between the bi-annual meeting/conference the executive committee shall have power to act on all matters. Finally I should set out clauses 4.16 and 4.17:-

“4.16

Prior to the first election of the new executive, the timetable and procedure governing the election will be approved by the NEC of the Labour Party and/or its organisation committee. If at any time in the future BAME Labour ceases to function in accordance with these rules, then the NEC and/or its organisation committee will have the power to take action as appropriate. Also, if the bi-annual meeting has not been held within 28 months of the previous one, this will automatically trigger a referral to the organisation committee of the NEC.

4.17

BAME Labour and BAME Labour Executive shall work closely with the Labour Party National Executive Committee and in particular work closely with the Party staff to deliver its aims and objectives.”

There are no formal minutes of this meeting. Ms Noori made handwritten notes of what occurred and these were produced by the Claimant. However, Ms Noori did not give evidence herself. The Claimant was not present at the meeting. She had discussed what occurred with Mr Shahzad but, obviously, she had no first hand knowledge of what was discussed. I heard oral evidence from Mr Shahzad, Mrs Nelson, Mr Jandu and Ms Mulholland; each of those had attended the meeting in person.

In his witness statement Mr Shahzad sets out to describe what occurred at the meeting. He says that Ms Mulholland set out the timetable for the election and that thereafter he registered his disagreement both with the timetable and with the proposal for a membership freeze as at 26 October 2010. According to Mr Shahzad his stance was supported by Councillor Noori. Three other members of the executive committee were present at the meeting. Mr Shahzad says that two of those supported the timetable for the election – they were Mrs Nelson and Mr Jandu while the other person present, Dr Patel, remained neutral.

Mr Shahzad also says that other members of the executive committee were present in the sense that they were connected to the meeting by telephone call. According to Mr Shahzad “some of these people were not on line” as the election timetable was discussed. In his oral evidence Mr Shahzad claimed that the line was cut essentially upon the advice of Ms Mulholland (for reasons unconnected with the meeting) but before the discussion upon the election had concluded.

Paragraph 7 of Mr Shahzad’s witness statement reads:-

“This meeting was definitely not convened to discuss election timetable and/or the elections. The meeting started off with a report of Norma Stephenson, and went on to other matters such as Labour Party Conference/social events and recruitment issues.”

In his oral evidence Mr Shahzad did not suggest that there was a consensus against the holding of the election in accordance with the timetable suggested by the organisation committee. Essentially he told me that no conclusion was reached about the timetable for the election.

Mr Shahzad was not the only witness before me to be wrong when he suggested that Ms Stephenson attended this meeting. It is quite clear, on the whole of the evidence, that she did not. Equally, in my judgment, Mr Shahzad is wrong to suggest, as he did in his witness statement, that the meeting was “definitely not convened to discuss election timetable and/or the election”. It is clear, in my judgment, that a primary purpose if not the primary purpose for the meeting was to discuss the forthcoming election.

Given those inaccuracies in Mr Shahzad’s evidence it is inevitable that I approach his assertion that the meeting reached no conclusion upon the election issue with some caution.

Ms Mulholland, Mr Jandu and Mrs Nelson asserted positively that a consensus was reached to the effect that the election should proceed in accordance with the arrangements made and suggested by the organisation committee. It is true that their evidence was not entirely consistent; Ms Mulholland told me that she called for a vote and that a vote took place; Mrs Nelson and Mr Jandu simply asserted that a consensus emerged. In her first witness statement Ms Mulholland says that a majority of the executive present was content with the arrangements; in parts of her oral evidence she asserted that the arrangements were approved unanimously. I do not accept that there was unanimity in the strict sense, at least. Even if, Mr Shahzad, accepted that the arrangements had been approved by the end of the meeting it is clear, in my judgment, that he had opposed them.

Mrs Nelson and Mr Jandu incorrectly thought that Ms Stephenson had been present at this meeting. Indeed, they were parties to the letter of 21 January 2011 which made that same erroneous assertion.

The plain fact is that sound reasons exist for viewing the evidence of each of the witnesses who spoke about what occurred at the meeting of 9 December 2010 with a degree of caution. That said, and without much hesitation, I accept the thrust of the evidence of Ms Mulholland, Mrs Nelson and Mr Jandu that by the end of the meeting a consensus had emerged that the election would be carried out in accordance with the arrangements explained by Ms Mulholland and suggested by the organisation committee. I say that for a number of reasons. First, Mr Shahzad’s evidence, generally, was unimpressive. In particular his evidence relating to the cutting off of persons connected by telephone before the relevant discussion had taken place seems highly implausible. He was clearly wrong to suggest that the meeting was not convened to discuss the election. Second, it is improbable that a meeting which was convened to reach a conclusion about the election arrangements failed to do so, one way or the other. There is a ring of truth about the point made in the letter of 21 January 2011 to the effect that the “only point of consensus in the committee was that there should be fresh election;” in those circumstances it is extremely difficult to believe that the arrangements were not finalised at this meeting. Third, the Defendant has said consistently – since the first letter from its solicitor on 15 December 2010 – that the election arrangements were approved at the meeting. The solicitor’s letter must have been written on the basis of what Ms Mulholland had said about the meeting. Having seen her give evidence over some considerable time I find it inconceivable that she would have made up that assertion or been mistaken about it, literally, within a few days of the meeting taking place. The Defendant’s assertion in the correspondence was never answered by the Claimant’s solicitor.

In my judgment the evidence shows quite clearly that the election arrangements suggested by the organisation committee on 26 October 2010 were approved by a majority of the executive committee at the meeting of 9 December 2010.

In reaching that conclusion I bear in mind the fact that there may have been some disquiet about the freeze date. I accept that the freeze date for this election was such that a much longer period would pass between the last date for new members to participate and the holding of the election. I am not persuaded, however, that such disquiet as there was about the freeze date led to a situation whereby no conclusion was reached upon the holding of the election.

In the light of my conclusion as to what occurred at the meeting of 9 December 2010 it seems to me to be clear that the arrangements for the election were made in accordance with clause 4.6 of the BAME Labour constitution. That provides, expressly, that nomination papers for all elections shall be sent out in accordance with the timetable approved by the executive committee and organisation committee of the NEC. On my findings of fact that is precisely what occurred.

It is true, of course, that the nomination papers were not sent out by the Claimant. In my judgment nothing turns on that and the reality is that the Claimant makes no complaint about it. She did not have the wherewithal to dispatch the better part of 4000 letters. Officers of the Defendant had always in the past dispatched the documentation relevant to an election and there was no expectation on behalf of the Claimant (or any other member of the executive committee) that that practice should change.

I reject the suggestion which surfaced in the evidence of Mr. Shahzad that the meeting was not quorate. Even if a quorum of six members present was required (which is doubtful to say the least) I am satisfied on the whole of the evidence that at least six persons were present either in the room where the meeting took place or on the telephone at all material times and certainly when a consensus emerged to approve the arrangements for the election.

The Defendant submits that even if the timetable for the election was not approved by the executive committee the organisation committee was entitled to impose the timetable in reliance upon clause 4.16 of BAME Labour’s constitution. Strictly, it is unnecessary to decide this point. I have reached the conclusion, however, that the NEC and/or its organisation committee was entitled to invoke the power contained in clause 4.16 in the circumstances prevailing. On any view the executive committee was hopelessly split and had been since 15 July 2010 at the latest. An attempt to discuss the election had foundered at the meeting of the executive committee on 11 November 2010 on any view of what occurred. If, contrary to my conclusion, no agreement was reached on 9 December 2010 what was the organisation committee supposed to do except intervene?

Clause 4.16 empowers the organisation committee to take appropriate action if BAME Labour ceases to function in accordance with “these rules”. Clause 4.17 mandates both BAME Labour and its executive committee to work closely with the NEC and Party staff to deliver its aim and objectives. How could BAME Labour deliver its aims and objectives when its executive committee was factionalised and no agreement could be reached about a crucial matter, namely, the holding of an election to select an executive committee? In my judgment the organisation committee would have been more than justified in intervening in these circumstances although, to repeat, on my findings of fact in relation to the meeting of 9 December 2010 that is not what occurred.

The Claimant complains that the letter of 13 December and the nomination papers were not sent to her. As I have said, as a matter of fact that is agreed.

I accept the evidence of Ms Mulholland that the records available to the Defendant showed that the Claimant was in arrears in relation to her membership fees. The records demonstrated that she had not paid since 2008. I also accept that Ms Mulholland had telephoned the Claimant in August 2010 to alert her to that fact.

The Claimant says that she paid the arrears before 13 December 2010. Her evidence about payment, however, was confusing. She appeared to be suggesting first that she had personally made payment to Ms Mulholland at the Labour Party Conference. She then said that she had given the money to Mr Shahzad with a view to him making payment on her behalf.

In his witness statement Mr Shahzad said that the Claimant paid her membership at the Labour Party Conference BAME Labour fringe meeting. He says that at this meeting he collected her membership form and her fee and that he gave that form and the fee to Ms Mulholland together with other applications and fees.

Ms Mulholland told me that she had not attended the BAME Labour fringe meeting and that although Mr Shahzad had given her application forms and fees at the meeting of 11 November 2010 those did not include an application form from the Claimant.

On this issue, unhesitatingly, I prefer the evidence of Ms Mulholland.

The constitution is silent about whether or not nomination papers are to be sent to persons who are treated as members but who are in arrears with their membership fees.

As a matter of sensible interpretation it seems to me that there is no obligation upon an organisation to circulate papers specifying the key dates for an election and nomination papers relating to the election to a member who is not paid up to date. In an organisation such as BAME Labour the member in question would soon learn of the distribution of material and, no doubt, seek to resolve the issue of payment or non payment (as the case may be) expeditiously. I can see the counter argument, namely, that the organisation should send out papers to all persons who are treated as members and resolve the issue of membership fees thereafter. While that might be an appropriate course to take I do not consider that the BAME Labour constitution requires that such a course is taken.

In any event the real issue is whether or not the failure to send the letter of 13 December to the Claimant together with the relevant nomination papers could have the effect of invalidating the process of the election. In my judgment that cannot be the case and, to be fair to Mr Macdonald QC, he did not seek to press that point with any enthusiasm.

In the light of these conclusions this claim must fail.

I am conscious that I have not resolved every issue which was canvassed before me. For example, while it was accepted that a contract existed between BAME Labour and the Defendant by virtue of BAME Labour’s status as an affiliate, the Claimant alleged that a separate or collateral contract also existed between those organisations which defined those functions which the Defendant was entitled to perform on behalf of BAME Labour. No useful purpose would be served in addressing that issue in this judgment since, as was accepted by Mr Macdonald, my conclusion about the events which occurred in the meeting of 9 December 2010 was likely to be determinative of the main point in the case. I content myself by saying that I would have required a great deal of persuasion that any contract existed between BAME Labour on the one hand and the Defendant on the other save for that which was agreed to exist by virtue of BAME Labour’s status as an affiliate.

Mr Choudhury on behalf of the Defendant argued vigorously that the Claimant had no standing to bring these proceedings. She was not entitled to bring a representative action and she had no personal cause of action against the Defendant so he submitted. The probability is that Mr Choudhury is right. Since, however, this judgment is required urgently no useful purpose would be served by extending its length and, therefore, the time before which it can be handed down by a reasoned exposition of why I consider that Mr Choudhury’s submissions on standing are well founded.

At the handing down of this judgment I propose to dismiss the claim and give judgment for the Defendant. If the parties can agree such other consequential orders as may arise there need be no attendance at the handing down.