Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 148 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2014] EWHC 65 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)

Mr Justice Keith

Representation David Reade QC (instructed by Baker and McKenzie LLP) for the claimant.
  The CAC did not appear and was not represented.
  John Hendy QC (instructed by the Pharmacist's Defence Association) for the PDAU.
Judgment Dates: 22 January 2014


Trade union - Recognition - Central Arbitration Committee - Interested party trade union applying to defendant Central Arbitration Committee for recognition - Defendant finding application prima facie inadmissible but relevant statutory provision capable of having words read in to make application admissible - Claimant applying for judicial review of decision - Whether defendant erring - Whether declaration of incompatibility appropriate - European Convention on Human Rights, art 11.

The Case

Trade union Recognition. The interested party pharmacists trade union sought statutory recognition from the defendant Central Arbitration Committee under the . The defendant found that a prior agreement between the claimant company and another trade union rendered the interested party's application prima facie inadmissible, but that additional words could be read in to para35(1) of SchA1 to the Act so as to make para35(1) compatible with the interested party's rights under art11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court ruled that the defendant had acted unlawfully in reading the additional words into para35(1) of SchA1 to the Act, but that a final order would not be made until the interested party had had the opportunity to decide whether or not to apply for a declaration of incompatibility.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.