4th Nov 2024

Share:

Robert Strang Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London) for the Respondent


Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2023/0046

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Mr Mitoonlal Persad, (2) Sanctuary Workers Trade Union

Respondent(s)

Registration, Recognition and Certification Board

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that: (i) the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine the issue in this appeal was ousted by s.23(6) and (7) of the Industrial Relations Act; and (ii) the Registration, Recognition and Certification Board (the “Board”) did not act in breach of natural justice, nor did it fetter its discretion when making its decision in relation to good standing?

Facts

The First Appellant, Mr Persad, was dismissed from his employment with Royal Bank of Canada Limited (“RBC”). Mr Persad, who was a fully paid-up member of the Sanctury Workers’ Trade Union (the “Union”, the Second Appellant in these proceedings), wished to challenge his dismissal. Through his membership of, and with the support of, the Union, Mr Persad would ordinarily have been entitled to make a claim to the Industrial Court challenging RBC’s decision to dismiss him. However, in order for a union to be able to appear before the Industrial Court, it must be recognised by the Board (the Respondent in these proceedings). A union will not be recognised by the Board unless it is in good standing. The Board considered the position of the Union and found it was in breach of s.34(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (the “IRA”) because it had not opened a bank account. The Board said this meant the Union had not followed sound accounting procedures and practices, as required under s.34(3). The Appellants issued a claim for judicial review, arguing that the findings made by the Union were unlawful for a number of reasons, including that there is no definition of ‘sound accounting procedures and practices’ in the IRA. The High Court considered it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, and found that the Board’s decision that Mr Persad was not a member of standing of the Union was unlawful. The High Court also concluded that the decision the Board had made, based on its policy, was disproportionate and procedurally unfair. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, finding, amongst other things, that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Appellants now appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

12 June 2023

Judgment details

Judgment date

3 January 2025

Neutral citation

[2025] UKPC 1

 
 

Appeal

Hearing dates

Start date – 4 November 2024

End date – 4 November 2024

Watch the hearings here


Share:

Interested in our News & events?

Please subscribe here

Related People

Robert Strang

View profile

For Help or Advice…


Please contact us either by telephone: +44 (0)20 7415 7800 or email: clerks@3harecourt.com

 

 Follow

 

Barristers at 3 Hare Court are regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

Close
C&R

Menu

Portfolio Builder

Select the legal services that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)