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 during the picketing, which have been authorised or endorsed by the union and certain named individuals, and not repudiated. The evidence justifies an interlocutory injunction restraining unlawful conduct, but not a general limitation on picket numbers at site B at this stage. The injunction is necessary to prevent further intimidation and threats, balancing the rights to peaceful protest with the need to prevent crime and protect employees.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1889
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
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Emergency Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (without Notice, Urgent)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in part
Legal Topics
Trade Union Liability, Industrial Action, Picketing, Interlocutory Injunctions, Vicarious Liability, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression
Employment Law Labour Law Tort Law Human Rights Trade Union Liability Industrial Action Picketing Interlocutory Injunctions +3 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 5 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

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Emergency Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (without Notice, Urgent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the union and named/unnamed individuals are liable for unlawful picketing and associated torts
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain unlawful picketing and related conduct
  3. 3 Whether the union has authorised or endorsed unlawful acts under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case that unlawful and tortious acts have occurred during the picketing, which have been authorised or endorsed by the union and certain named individuals, and not repudiated. The evidence justifies an interlocutory injunction restraining unlawful conduct, but not a general limitation on picket numbers at site B at this stage. The injunction is necessary to prevent further intimidation and threats, balancing the rights to peaceful protest with the need to prevent crime and protect employees.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in part

Orders

  • Injunction granted restraining unlawful picketing, threats, intimidation, harassment, molestation, and abuse of employees by the union, specified named defendants, and persons unknown.
  • Picket numbers at site A limited to 6; no general limitation at site B at this stage.