On 2 January 2025, Mr Justice Dexter Dias delivered a judgment concerning the case of Josephine Hayes v Dr Mark Pack and others (KB-2022-003160). The case relates to Ms Josephine Hayes (the claimant), a barrister and active member of the Liberal Democrats (the Party), who sought to appeal decisions related to her expulsion from the Party.
The background of the case is rooted in a complaint made by Dr Pack against Ms Hayes following a virtual meeting on the selection of a candidate for the role of Essex Police Fire and Crime Commissioner, which led to the activation of the Party's complaints procedure and ultimately to Ms Hayes' expulsion. Ms Hayes filed a claim alleging breach of the Party's membership contract and sought reinstatement, damages, interest, and costs.
Ms Hayes' efforts to expand her claim
Ms Hayes argued that her "true case" was not restricted to the complaints process that was followed in relation to her expulsion, but a broader allegation that the Party "is not being governed properly to the detriment of individual members". She explained that, in bringing the claim, she was less concerned with the individual "wrong decision" but that she is trying to change the way the Party operates. Ms Hayes sought a Representation Order (under CPR19.8(1) in the following terms:
"The Defendants shall notify the members of the Party that issues of common interest to all members concerning the membership contract and the complaints procedure have arisen and accordingly the Court is minded to appoint one or more members of the Party as additional Defendant or Defendants to this claim to act as Ordinary Members' Representative, and invite expressions of willingness to be appointed, such responses to be received within seven days…"
Judgment
The court determined that there was no real prospect of success in arguing that the Master was wrong to reject the expansion of the claim into a species of group litigation exploring maladministration and governance. The judgment summarises two key decisions made by Master Armstrong, which Ms Hayes appealed. The first decision struck out parts of her claim that sought to investigate the party's internal governance and complaints system, focusing the case solely on the breach of contract dispute regarding her expulsion. The second decision denied her request to amend her claim to expand the relief sought and to change the title of the claim. Mr Justice Dexter Dias refused permission to appeal on all grounds for both decisions, emphasising that the claim is a private law matter, not a public law challenge, and is strictly about Ms Hayes's expulsion, not a broader examination of the Party's internal governance.
In conclusion, the court's decision underscores the private nature of the claim – which had been brought against the original complainant (to the Party) and the three members of the complaints panel that decided on Ms Hayes' expulsion - and the Court's view that it was inappropriate to transform such a claim into a platform for broader Party administration issues. The trial will proceed later this year, focusing on whether the disciplinary process and expulsion decision were in breach of the Party's membership contract.