Hayes v Pack & Anor [2025] EWHC 6 (KB) (02 January 2025)

Hayes v Pack & Anor [2025] EWHC 6 (KB) (02 January 2025)

Permission to appeal was refused because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success. The claim is a private law matter limited to the applicant's expulsion and does not justify expansion to wider governance or representation orders. The 2018 conference motion did not amend the contract or constitution, and the independence requirement was not incorporated. The Master's decisions were correct in law and procedure.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 6 (KB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Josephine Hayes; Respondent/defendant: Dr Mark Pack; Respondent/defendant: Duncan Curley; Respondent/defendant: Alexandra Simpson; Respondent/defendant: Serena Tierney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Permission to Appeal (oral Renewal) in Civil Breach of Contract Action / Post Interlocutory, Pre Trial, Permission to Appeal Against Two Master's Decisions
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on all grounds; application to adjourn trial dismissed.
Legal Topics
Expulsion From Unincorporated Association, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Representative Actions, Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 and 52, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings
Contract Law Civil Procedure Expulsion From Unincorporated Association Interpretation of Contract Terms Representative Actions Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 and 52 Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Hayes

Applicant/claimant

Dr Mark Pack

Respondent/defendant

Duncan Curley

Respondent/defendant

Alexandra Simpson

Respondent/defendant

Serena Tierney

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Permission to Appeal (oral Renewal) in Civil Breach of Contract Action / Post Interlocutory, Pre Trial, Permission to Appeal Against Two Master's Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against Master's decisions striking out parts of the claim and refusing amendments/representation orders
  2. 2 Whether the Party's complaints procedure was contractually required to be independent
  3. 3 Whether the claim could be expanded to address wider governance issues of the Party

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because none of the grounds had a real prospect of success. The claim is a private law matter limited to the applicant's expulsion and does not justify expansion to wider governance or representation orders. The 2018 conference motion did not amend the contract or constitution, and the independence requirement was not incorporated. The Master's decisions were correct in law and procedure.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on all grounds; application to adjourn trial dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal Judgment 1 (Appeal 1: KA-2024-000104) refused on all grounds.
  • Permission to appeal Judgment 2 (Appeal 2: KA-2024-000152) refused on all grounds.