Trade union defamation ruling clarifies legal standing

Introduction

The High Court has ruled on a pivotal case involving defamation claims brought by the trade union Prospect against its former member, Andrew Evans. The case centred around statements made by Evans on a public fundraising platform, which the union claimed were defamatory and amounted to malicious falsehood.

Background

Prospect, a trade union representing professionals across various sectors, merged with Bectu in 2017. Andrew Evans, a former member affiliated with the Bectu sector, was expelled from the union in December 2023. The union's claims arose from Evans's statements on the Go Fund Me website, where he alleged that the union had committed multiple criminal offences in its annual returns.

Legal Issues

The court was tasked with determining several preliminary issues, including whether a trade union member can legally defame the union, the natural and ordinary meaning of Evans's statements, and whether the statements were defamatory at common law. Additionally, the court examined whether the statements were factual or opinion-based and if the basis for any opinion was indicated.

Judgment

Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE ruled that, as a matter of law, a member of a trade union can defame that union. This decision was grounded in the interpretation of section 10 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which confers upon trade unions a quasi-corporate status, allowing them to sue in their own name.

Meaning and Reference

The court found that the natural and ordinary meaning of Evans's statement suggested there were reasonable grounds for suspecting the union of criminal wrongdoing in its annual returns. The statement was deemed to refer to the union itself, rather than individual officers, and was defamatory at common law.

Fact or Opinion

The court determined that Evans's statement was an expression of opinion, supported by the legal advice he claimed to have received. The basis for this opinion was indicated in general terms, referencing the union's annual returns and the legal advice.

Malicious Falsehood

The court did not make a determination on the malicious falsehood claim at this stage, noting that further evidence from specific publishees would be necessary to ascertain the actual meaning attributed to the statement by those who read it.

Conclusion

This case clarifies the legal standing of trade unions in defamation claims, affirming their ability to protect their reputation against defamatory statements made by their members. The ruling underscores the importance of context and the interpretation of statements in determining their defamatory nature.

Learn More

For more information on defamation law and legal protections for organisations, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.