Beaumont v Amicus

EAT: Judge Ansell: 11 August 2006

Solicitors acting on behalf of the respondent trade union wrote a letter before action to the claimant, a member of the union, alleging infringement of the union's trade mark and logo in the production of the claimant's website and demanding undertakings from the claimant to cease using the trade mark and to reimburse the legal costs incurred to the union. The letter also made complaint about material on the website being derogatory of union officials. By a claim in the employment tribunal the claimant contended that the union had unjustifiably disciplined him, contrary to sections 64(1)(2)(b)(f) and 65(1)(c) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, by writing the letter. The employment tribunal struck out the claim on the ground that it had no prospect of success, since the letter before action was not a "determination" for the purposes of section 64(2) of the Act.

The claimant appealed.

JUDGE ANSELL held:
For there to be a "determination" by the union for the purpose of section 64 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 there had to be a demand by the union which was effectively within its powers and which was not conditional, and the letter before action was no more than a request which the claimant could either accept or reject, which had no immediate demand or power behind it, and, accordingly, it did not constitute a valid determination within section 64.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appearances: The claimant in person; Peter Edwards (Amicus Legal Services) for the union.