Gatwick Express, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee

Gatwick Express, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee

The CAC erred in law by disregarding valid objections from union members and misinterpreting paragraph 22(4)(b); eight out of twenty union members objecting is a significant number, warranting the holding of a secret ballot.

Parties
Claimant: Gatwick Express Limited; Respondent: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: TSSA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing
Outcome
application for judicial review allowed; CAC decision quashed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Judicial Review Procedure
Employment Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Judicial Review Procedure

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

Parties

Gatwick Express Limited

Claimant

Central Arbitration Committee

Respondent

TSSA

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CAC erred in law or acted perversely in disregarding letters from union members opposing recognition
  2. 2 Whether eight out of twenty union members constitutes a 'significant number' under paragraph 22(4)(b) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  3. 3 Whether the court should quash the CAC's decision and direct the holding of a secret ballot

Ratio Decidendi

The CAC erred in law by disregarding valid objections from union members and misinterpreting paragraph 22(4)(b); eight out of twenty union members objecting is a significant number, warranting the holding of a secret ballot.

Court Disposition

application for judicial review allowed; CAC decision quashed

Orders

  • Permission granted to proceed with judicial review
  • CAC decision of 11 July 2003 quashed