Gate Gourmet London Ltd. v Transport and General Workers Union & Ors [2005] EWHC 1889 (QB) (21 August 2005)

Gate Gourmet London Ltd. v Transport and General Workers Union & Ors [2005] EWHC 1889 (QB) (21 August 2005)

There is a good arguable case that unlawful and tortious acts have occurred at the picket sites, that union officials were aware and did not repudiate the conduct, and that the union may be vicariously liable under the Act. The evidence justifies an interlocutory injunction restraining unlawful conduct by named and unnamed defendants, but not a general limitation on picket numbers at site B at this stage. The injunction is necessary and proportionate to prevent crime and protect employees, notwithstanding the rights to peaceful assembly and expression.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1889 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Gate Gourmet London Limited; Defendant/respondent: Transport and General Workers Union; Defendant/respondent: The Individuals Named in Schedule 1 to this Order; Defendant/respondent: Persons Unknown engaging in unlawful picketing etc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Emergency Application for Interlocutory Injunction (without Notice, Save to Union) / Interlocutory (interim Relief)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in part (not entirely on terms sought by claimant)
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Picketing, Trade Union Liability, Interlocutory Injunctions, Human Rights (freedom of Assembly/expression)
Employment Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Industrial Action Picketing Trade Union Liability Interlocutory Injunctions Human Rights (freedom of Assembly/expression)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gate Gourmet London Limited

Claimant/applicant

Transport and General Workers Union

Defendant/respondent

The Individuals Named in Schedule 1 to this Order

Defendant/respondent

Persons Unknown engaging in unlawful picketing etc.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Emergency Application for Interlocutory Injunction (without Notice, Save to Union) / Interlocutory (interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain unlawful picketing and associated conduct by union members and others at the claimant's premises
  2. 2 Whether the union is vicariously liable for the alleged unlawful acts of its officials and members under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should be granted against named and unnamed defendants, and whether numbers at picket sites should be limited

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case that unlawful and tortious acts have occurred at the picket sites, that union officials were aware and did not repudiate the conduct, and that the union may be vicariously liable under the Act. The evidence justifies an interlocutory injunction restraining unlawful conduct by named and unnamed defendants, but not a general limitation on picket numbers at site B at this stage. The injunction is necessary and proportionate to prevent crime and protect employees, notwithstanding the rights to peaceful assembly and expression.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in part (not entirely on terms sought by claimant)

Orders

  • Injunction restraining unlawful picketing, threats, intimidation, harassment, molestation, or abuse of employees by named and unnamed defendants
  • Picket numbers at site A limited to 6; no picketing at bus stops at Southern Perimeter Road and Scylla Road