Ramsay v Pain & Ors [2020] EWHC 3655 (Ch) (20 November 2020)

Ramsay v Pain & Ors [2020] EWHC 3655 (Ch) (20 November 2020)

The application for a quia timet injunction would have failed as there was no imminent danger of substantial damage; the meeting was not to deselect the claimant but to call another meeting. The intended claimant's contractual and data protection claims were weak. Costs should follow the event, with the intended claimant to pay the intended defendant's costs.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3655 (Ch)
Parties
Intended Claimant: Nicholas Ramsay; Intended Defendant: Nicholas Hacket Pain (sued on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Monmouth Conservative Association except the Intended Claimant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction (pre Claim) / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against intended claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Quia Timet Relief, Costs Orders, Unincorporated Associations, Gdpr/data Protection, Political Party Membership
Contract Law Data Protection Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Quia Timet Relief Costs Orders Unincorporated Associations Gdpr/data Protection +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Ramsay

Intended Claimant

Nicholas Hacket Pain (sued on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Monmouth Conservative Association except the Intended Claimant)

Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction (pre Claim) / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intended claimant was entitled to a quia timet injunction restraining a meeting of the Association
  2. 2 Whether there was a lawful basis for data processing under GDPR/Data Protection Act
  3. 3 Whether contractual or public law principles entitled the intended claimant to information or to prevent the meeting

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a quia timet injunction would have failed as there was no imminent danger of substantial damage; the meeting was not to deselect the claimant but to call another meeting. The intended claimant's contractual and data protection claims were weak. Costs should follow the event, with the intended claimant to pay the intended defendant's costs.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against intended claimant.

Orders

  • Intended claimant to pay intended defendant's costs of and occasioned by the application.