Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd v British Airline Pilots Association [2017] EWHC 2253 (QB) (06 September 2017)

Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd v British Airline Pilots Association [2017] EWHC 2253 (QB) (06 September 2017)

The voting paper indicated a period within which industrial action was proposed, which satisfied the requirements of section 229(2D); the statute does not require more detailed specification of dates or periods. Therefore, it is not more likely than not that the defendant failed to comply with section 229(2D), and the injunction should not be granted.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2253 (QB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Thomas Cook Airlines Limited; Respondent/defendant: British Airline Pilots Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Hearing and Determination of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Trade Union Ballots, Injunctions, Statutory Compliance
Employment Law Labour Law Industrial Action Trade Union Ballots Injunctions Statutory Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Cook Airlines Limited

Applicant/claimant

British Airline Pilots Association

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Hearing and Determination of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ballot paper issued by the defendant complied with section 229(2D) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as amended by the Trade Unions Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from calling a strike

Ratio Decidendi

The voting paper indicated a period within which industrial action was proposed, which satisfied the requirements of section 229(2D); the statute does not require more detailed specification of dates or periods. Therefore, it is not more likely than not that the defendant failed to comply with section 229(2D), and the injunction should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction refused