Graham v Eltham Conservative & Unionist Club & Ors [2013] EWHC 979 (QB) (12 April 2013)

Graham v Eltham Conservative & Unionist Club & Ors [2013] EWHC 979 (QB) (12 April 2013)

All appeals are totally without merit; claims against individual committee members, Secretary, and police officer are legally unsustainable; claims relating to 2005 suspension and 2007 ballot are time-barred; costs orders and unless orders were properly made; exclusion of lay advocate was justified due to disruptive conduct; no bias or procedural error by judges.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 979
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Andrew James Graham; Defendants/respondents: Eltham Conservative & Unionist Club & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Determination
Outcome
All appeals refused; applications dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Strike Out Applications, Lay Advocates, Mc Kenzie Friends, Costs Orders, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Discrimination Law Racial Discrimination Victimisation Strike Out Applications Lay Advocates Mc Kenzie Friends Costs Orders +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew James Graham

Claimant/appellant

Eltham Conservative & Unionist Club & Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against individual committee members and officers of the Club are legally sustainable
  2. 2 Whether the Club Secretary is personally liable
  3. 3 Whether claims against Chief Superintendent Jarratt are legally sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

All appeals are totally without merit; claims against individual committee members, Secretary, and police officer are legally unsustainable; claims relating to 2005 suspension and 2007 ballot are time-barred; costs orders and unless orders were properly made; exclusion of lay advocate was justified due to disruptive conduct; no bias or procedural error by judges.

Court Disposition

All appeals refused; applications dismissed as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Appeals marked as totally without merit
  • Costs orders against Claimant upheld