Unite the Union v Andrew Green

Unite the Union v Andrew Green

The standing orders, by incorporating the ABC of Chairmanship, required a two-thirds majority for a motion of no confidence in the chair. The removal motion was, in substance, a motion of no confidence. Therefore, the removal motion required a two-thirds majority to be passed, and the simple majority vote was insufficient to remove the chair.

Parties
Claimant: Unite the Union; Defendant: Andrew Green
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Union Rules, Removal of Chair, Majority Requirements, Standing Orders
Trade Union Law Contract Law Interpretation of Union Rules Removal of Chair Majority Requirements Standing Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unite the Union

Claimant

Andrew Green

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the chair of the Executive Council required a simple majority or a two-thirds majority under the union's rules and standing orders

Ratio Decidendi

The standing orders, by incorporating the ABC of Chairmanship, required a two-thirds majority for a motion of no confidence in the chair. The removal motion was, in substance, a motion of no confidence. Therefore, the removal motion required a two-thirds majority to be passed, and the simple majority vote was insufficient to remove the chair.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The removal motion was not passed; Andrew Green remains chair of the Executive Council.
  • The union will bear all costs of the proceedings.