Boots Management Services Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v The Central Arbitration Committee

Boots Management Services Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v The Central Arbitration Committee

Para. 35 of Schedule A1 renders the PDAU's application inadmissible, but the proper construction of 'collective bargaining' in para. 134(1) allows the PDAU, through a Boots pharmacist, to apply for de-recognition of the BPA, thus avoiding incompatibility with Article 11 ECHR. The CAC's decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Boots Management Services Ltd; Defendant: The Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: The Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union; Intervenor: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds; CAC's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boots Management Services Ltd

Claimant

The Central Arbitration Committee

Defendant

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union

Interested Party

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether para. 35 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 renders the PDAU's application inadmissible
  2. 2 Whether provisions in Schedule A1 are incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Proper construction of 'collective bargaining' in para. 134(1) of Schedule A1

Ratio Decidendi

Para. 35 of Schedule A1 renders the PDAU's application inadmissible, but the proper construction of 'collective bargaining' in para. 134(1) allows the PDAU, through a Boots pharmacist, to apply for de-recognition of the BPA, thus avoiding incompatibility with Article 11 ECHR. The CAC's decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds; CAC's decision quashed.

Orders

  • CAC's decision on admissibility of PDAU's application quashed.
  • Parties to agree costs; if not, written submissions within 14 days.