Gatwick Express, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee [2003] EWHC 2035 (Admin) (11 August 2003)

Gatwick Express, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee [2003] EWHC 2035 (Admin) (11 August 2003)

The CAC erred in law by disregarding the letters from union members opposing recognition without sufficient justification, and by importing requirements not found in the statute. The decision is quashed and the CAC is ordered to give notice of its intention to arrange a secret ballot, as agreed by the claimant and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2035 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Gatwick Express Limited; Defendant: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: TSSA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing Following Grant of Permission
Outcome
application for judicial review allowed; CAC decision quashed; CAC ordered to give notice of intention to arrange secret ballot
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gatwick Express Limited

Claimant

Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

TSSA

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing Following Grant of Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee erred in law or acted perversely in disregarding letters from union members opposing recognition when determining if a significant number objected under paragraph 22(4)(b) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
  2. 2 Whether the court should itself determine that eight out of twenty union members constitutes a significant number for the purposes of triggering a secret ballot.

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC erred in law by disregarding the letters from union members opposing recognition without sufficient justification, and by importing requirements not found in the statute. The decision is quashed and the CAC is ordered to give notice of its intention to arrange a secret ballot, as agreed by the claimant and interested party.

Court Disposition

application for judicial review allowed; CAC decision quashed; CAC ordered to give notice of intention to arrange secret ballot

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with judicial review granted.
  • Decision of the CAC panel promulgated on 11 July 2003 quashed.