PC (Bermuda) An injunction had been granted requiring the trade union to cease industrial action. The action was settled, but the injunction was not released. Later, there were furthe rdisputes, and committal was sought.
Held: The later action taken was in the nature of an industrial dispute of the sort restrained. The trade union, by the decisions of its officials and meetings prescribed by the rules, had power to decide not to comply with its collective obligations. But it had no power on behalf of its members to decide that they would not comply with their individual obligations. That was a matter for them. Although the action was a breach, the way it had been enforced without proper notice, and after such a delay was an abuse of process, and the injunction should be discharged.
Citations:
[2002] UKPC 39
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) CA 1972
Railway employees had been instructed by their unions to ‘work to rule’ and more specifically to ban overtime, Sunday and rest day working. ‘Working to rule’ meant giving an unreasonably literal construction to certain requirements of the railway . .
Cited – Lloyds Bowmaker Ltd v Britannia Arrow Holdings Plc CA 1988
It is the duty of a plaintiff who has obtained an interlocutory injunction to proceed to trial and not simply to sit back and rely upon the injunction until such time as the defendant moves to discharge it. The court have stressed the importance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179170