Williamson MP v Formby

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is a Member of Parliament and longstanding member of Company A, who was suspended by the Party pending an internal investigation into alleged conduct bringing the Party into disrepute. An internal panel found misconduct but issued only a formal warning rather than referral to the National Constitutional Committee ("NCC"). Following significant public and internal outcry, the Party's Disputes Panel reconsidered and set aside the prior decision, referring the case to the NCC and maintaining the suspension. The Appellant commenced proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the Party's decisions and seeking injunctions restraining further disciplinary action. Subsequently, new allegations were raised against the Appellant, leading to a second suspension pending investigation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Party acted lawfully in reopening and setting aside the Disputes Panel's original disciplinary decision against the Appellant.
2. Whether the Party's procedures and exercise of delegated powers complied with the contractual and procedural fairness obligations under the Party's rules and relevant legal principles.
3. Whether the second suspension and new disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were lawful and justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The original disciplinary decision was communicated as final and should not have been reopened without proper reasons.
• The decision to reopen was unfair, lacked proper procedural basis, and was influenced improperly by public and political pressure.
• The second suspension appears to be a contrived effort to justify continued suspension, with suspicious timing and procedural irregularities.

Respondent's Arguments (Company A)

• The Party has the power under its rules to reopen disciplinary proceedings where justice requires it, including to remedy procedural flaws.
• The decision to reopen was made in good faith, with concerns including the health of a panel member and breaches of confidentiality.
• Public and press reaction is a legitimate factor for the Party to consider in assessing disciplinary matters.
• The second suspension and new disciplinary proceedings relate to fresh allegations and are lawful; the Party carefully considered the decision to suspend again.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recognising the serious impact of suspension on the Appellant's political career, placing the Party's disciplinary process closer to a domestic tribunal than a social club. It accepted that the Party's rules constitute a contractual relationship, imposing implied terms of good faith, fairness, and rationality in exercising disciplinary powers.

The court examined the Party's governance structure and the delegation of powers from the National Executive Committee ("NEC") to its Organisation Committee and further to the Disputes Panel. It noted procedural irregularities in how the June 2019 disciplinary decision was communicated as final without awaiting formal approval from the Organisation Committee, contrary to Party rules.

Applying the authority from McKenzie, the court accepted that the Party has power to reopen disciplinary decisions if justice requires, including to correct procedural unfairness. However, such power must be exercised with proper reasons and in good faith, not arbitrarily or capriciously.

On the evidence, the court found no proper or sufficient reasons for the Party to reopen the original disciplinary decision. The purported health issues of a panel member were inadequately supported by evidence, and breaches of confidentiality, while unfortunate, did not justify reopening the case. Allegations of political interference were hinted at but not substantiated or properly evidenced by the Party.

The court was concerned that the Party's decision was likely influenced by the intense public and internal outcry following the June decision, which is not a proper judicial ground for reopening a case. The Party's own protocol requires quasi-judicial impartiality and fairness, precluding decisions influenced by external pressures.

Consequently, the court held that reopening the disciplinary case and referring it to the NCC was unfair and unlawful. It granted declaratory relief to that effect.

Regarding the second suspension based on new allegations, the court acknowledged that while the Party cannot pursue the original case, it is entitled to investigate and discipline the Appellant for new conduct. The court found no evidence that the new suspension was unfair, bad faith, or procedurally improper, and refused to grant relief restraining the new disciplinary process.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Labour Party acted unfairly and unlawfully in reopening and setting aside the original disciplinary decision communicated as final, and in referring the case to the NCC without proper reasons. The court granted declaratory relief to that effect, effectively reinstating the original June decision as valid and final.

However, the court refused to interfere with the Party's second suspension and new disciplinary proceedings, finding them lawful and justified.

Implications: The decision limits the Party's ability to reopen disciplinary decisions absent proper grounds and reinforces procedural fairness and good faith obligations under the Party's rules. It does not prevent the Party from pursuing new allegations against the Appellant. No new legal precedent beyond the application of established principles was established.