Ryanair DAC v British Airline Pilots' Association [2019] EWHC 3882 (QB) (21 August 2019)

Ryanair DAC v British Airline Pilots' Association [2019] EWHC 3882 (QB) (21 August 2019)

BALPA's conduct of the ballot, including the imposition of a reasonable cut-off for late joiners, did not breach statutory requirements; any failures were de minimis and did not deprive BALPA of statutory immunity. The application for an interim injunction was not justified as the s.219 defence was likely to succeed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3882
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Ryanair DAC; Respondent/defendant: British Airline Pilots' Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (industrial Action) / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Interim Application
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Trade Union Ballots, Injunctions, Statutory Immunity, Balloting Requirements
Employment Law Labour Law Industrial Action Trade Union Ballots Injunctions Statutory Immunity Balloting Requirements

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

Parties

Ryanair DAC

Applicant/claimant

British Airline Pilots' Association

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (industrial Action) / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Interim Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BALPA's ballot and strike notice complied with statutory requirements under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether technical breaches deprived BALPA of statutory immunity under s.219
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain strike action

Ratio Decidendi

BALPA's conduct of the ballot, including the imposition of a reasonable cut-off for late joiners, did not breach statutory requirements; any failures were de minimis and did not deprive BALPA of statutory immunity. The application for an interim injunction was not justified as the s.219 defence was likely to succeed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction refused
  • No order restraining strike action