The High Court has refused Collen Construction Limited’s application for an interlocutory injunction against the Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU), finding insufficient evidence at this stage that the union itself was involved in unlawful protests or posed a real risk of future unlawful activity.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered the judgment on 16 May 2006 in two connected actions. The court said there was little doubt that some methods used during a campaign directed at Collen’s building sites were unlawful. But the application before it concerned only whether BATU should be restrained pending the hearing of the interlocutory application. Earlier proceedings against individual defendants had been dealt with, and contempt had been purged.
BATU had given an undertaking in one action in February 2006 to refrain from specified conduct, including industrial action, picketing, interference with access to sites and trespass. Collen sought an injunction in the same terms. BATU denied involvement in the events and argued that it should not be required to continue giving an undertaking.
The judge found a fair issue to be tried about the unlawfulness of much of the activity directed at Collen. The dispute was whether there was enough evidence for a fair issue about BATU’s organisational involvement. The court considered that a BATU organiser had proposed an agreement on direct employment of union members, but said that proposal was not improper and did not establish union involvement in the later protests. The judge also noted that a demand for local workers formed part of the agitation but was not part of the organiser’s proposal.
Evidence that BATU members, including shop stewards, took part did not by itself establish that the union as an organisation was involved. The judge gave no weight at this stage to hearsay attributed to unnamed people. He also considered a letter from BATU’s deputy secretary general instructing members to stop unofficial picketing, and the fact that members accused of involvement had been written to. He said it was too early to draw an adverse inference from the absence of disciplinary action, which would have to follow natural justice.
The court was not satisfied that Collen had established a fair case that BATU’s leadership acted with those involved in the protests. The judge left open the possibility that further evidence at trial could establish such a connection.
He also found that the agitation had abated and that no unlawful activity appeared likely at the time. Even if a fair issue had been shown, he said an injunction would require evidence of a real risk of future wrongdoing by BATU. He refused the order sought.