UKIP Loses, Loses & Loses COURT CASES

UKIP Loses, Loses & Loses COURT CASES

Hi,

one can not fail to note the consistency with which UKIP rushes to law and regularly loses using up huge amounts of members' money!

Again & again UKIP finds itself at the losing end of the court cases it gets involved in - whether losing to The Electoral Commission, Industrial & employment tribunals, copyright cases, data protection and again and again the courts find against UKIP - With their track record of dishonesty, bullying and abuse just how can they be perceived to be fit to be elected to represent ANYONE other than themselves as they so self servingly do!

From Gazette Live:

A CLASH of personalities at a Teesside branch of a national political party has cost more than £16,000 in legal fees, its North-east organiser has claimed.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) must carry the can after a row at its Stockton branch triggered a string of court appearances described by one judge as a “storm in a teacup”.

The “unfortunate and regrettable” falling out between Alan Hardy - the branch’s former press officer - and its then chairman Gordon Parkin sparked a legal marathon, London’s Appeal Court heard.

Mr Hardy, who joined UKIP in 2007, two years after he quit the British National Party, “did not get on” with Mr Parkin and, within months, resigned as press officer, telling Mr Parkin that he would not serve in any post on a branch which had him as chairman.

But Mr Hardy continued as a member of the branch and the atmosphere became so poisonous that a meeting in February 2009 had to be abandoned when the caretaker of the hall where it was held asked everyone to leave “on account of the noise from the raised voices”.

Appeal Court judge Sir Mark Potter said the row “escalated to national level” when, in February last year, UKIP’s head office rejected Mr Hardy’s bid to renew his membership, setting the scene for a legal row which culminated in the Appeal Court’s ruling yesterday.

At Middlesbrough County Court last November, Judge Peter Fox QC ruled Mr Hardy had been “wrongfully excluded from membership of UKIP in breach of contract”.

He was awarded £750 damages and UKIP was told to take him back as a member on payment of a £10 subscription.

Yesterday, Sir Mark Potter, sitting with Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Tomlinson, said Judge Fox had been right to rule that Mr Hardy’s membership of UKIP had never been lawfully terminated and to award him damages “in respect of the interference with his membership rights”.

The appeal judge said neither the Stockton branch, nor Mr Parkin personally, should have been joined as parties to the case, so Mr Hardy’s case against them failed. However the national party is now facing up to heavy legal costs after its appeal against Judge Fox’s decision was dismissed.

Speaking after the hearing, Gordon Parkin, 59, now UKIP North-east’s regional organiser, told the Gazette:

“Since all of this, the Stockton branch has been dissolved. Mr Hardy, like all the other members of that branch, are welcome to attend meetings in Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.”

Mr Parkin confirmed the whole process had been costly for the party.

He added: “I’m obviously happy that I wasn’t found to be at fault - but the whole thing, as far as I’m aware, came to about £16,500 in costs.”

At a preliminary hearing earlier this year, Lord Justice Ward described the dispute as “a storm in a teacup” after hearing Mr Hardy was by then back in the party.

The Gazette was not able to contact Mr Hardy for a comment.

To view the original CLICK HERE

The Judgement is cited below Alan Hardy's response which was widely distributed on the internet:

Dear Sirs,

I read the article connected to my successful action against Gordon Parkin and UKIP a few minutes ago on the internet.

As ever, Gordon Parkin was economical with the truth, indeed I have grave doubts as to whether he knows what the truth actually is. To begin with the exact total cost of the actions, which of course must be met by the rank and file membership of UKIP, while unknown to me is, I would conservatively estimate, not less than GBP 30,000.

I shall forward further details if you wish, but as far as I am concerned the whole matter boiled down to my being denied the opportunity to defend myself in the face of a ban placed upon me by Gordon Parkin in respect of attending meetings over which he presided. He failed to respond to calls for reason to prevail, hence the legal proceedings. My reason for so doing was simply that once we overlook a person's right to speak in their own defence, we may as well start building the gulags and concentration camps so beloved of those who thought as Gordon Parkin thinks.

The branch has not, as Mr Parkin claimed, been closed down. He attempted to do so at a meeting in August, but this was resisted and a new chairman, Mr Colin Rigg, has now secured permission from the party's National Executive Committee, to pursue its activities in Stockton on Tees. I further understand that once news of this reached Mr Parkin, one of his first actions was to attend Mr. Rigg's house and issue threats against him.

As far as I'm aware Mr Parkin currently holds the title of Regional Organiser for the north east, but in light of the events, as described, I find myself dounting if he will be allowed to continue in that role for much longer.

REGARDS

ALAN HARDY

Here is the full judgement:

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 1204

Case No: A2/2011/0002

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM Middlesborough District Registry

His Honour Judge Fox QC

9MBO3865

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 26/10/2011

Before:

LORD JUSTICE WARD

LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
and

SIR MARK POTTER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	(1) UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED	Appellants
	(2) GORDON HOWARD PARKIN

-and-

                                                                

 ALAN HARDY                                                         Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Philip Engelman (instructed by Endeavour Partnership LLP) for the Appellants

Alan Hardy (In Person)

Hearing date: 21 July 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

Sir Mark Potter:

1.                  This is an appeal from the Judgment of His Honour Judge Fox QC, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, dated 15 November 2010. It concerns a dispute which arose out of an unfortunate and regrettable clash of personalities within the Stockton-on-Tees Branch of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) between the respondent, Mr Alan Hardy, who became a member of UKIP in 2007 (the first appellant) and served for a short time as the Branch’s Press Officer, and Mr Gordon Parkin (the second appellant), who was and remains the Chairman of the Branch.

2.                  Having received a letter from Mr Parkin dated 11 September 2009 purporting to ban Mr Hardy from attending Branch meetings chaired by Mr Parkin, and  advising him to resign from his membership of UKIP, Mr Hardy, issued proceedings against Mr Parkin in the Middlesbrough County Court seeking a declaration that Mr Parkin’s actions were illegal and claiming damages.

3.                  The matter escalated to national level when, in February 2010 the Head Office of UKIP rejected Mr Hardy’s renewal subscription for the year 2010, following which he issued High Court proceedings against UKIP in the Middlesbrough  District Registry seeking a declaration that he had been wrongly excluded from membership.

4.                  The actions were subsequently consolidated and came on for trial lasting two days before His Honour Judge Fox Q.C. Mr Hardy appeared in person and Mr Holland of counsel appeared for Mr Parkin and UKIP. In the course of the proceedings Mr Holland advanced argument based upon the form of the UKIP Party Constitution (“the Constitution”) and its Branch and Constituency Association Rules (“the Rules”) that actions taken by Mr Parkin as Chairman of the Branch were taken as agent of the Branch, which enjoyed autonomous existence under the Rules, and hence that it might be the Branch and not UKIP who were liable for any unlawful action on the part of Mr Parkin. In order to meet that submission, the judge belatedly amended the proceedings so as to join the Branch as an additional defendant in circumstances to which I will turn in more detail below.

5.                  Having considered all the evidence, having construed the relevant correspondence at local and national level, the effect of which was subject to considerable argument, and having heard argument as to the effect of the Constitution and Rules, the judge held that neither the Constitution nor the Rules provide for the exclusion of a member in the circumstances of the case, and that Mr Hardy had been wrongfully excluded from membership of UKIP in breach of contract. He held that Mr Hardy was entitled to compensation by way of damages for such wrongful exclusion which he assessed in round terms in the sum of £750.

6.                  The form of the judgment against which UKIP brings this appeal was as follows:

“there be judgment for the claimant in the sum of £750.00 (total) against each defendant (that is Gordon H Parkin, UK Independent Party Limited and Stockton-on-Tees Branch of UK Independent Party Limited) with no order as to costs and a Declaration that upon the claimant’s payment to the 2^nd Defendant of £10.00 he be a member of the 2^nd Defendant’s Party and the 3^rd Defendant’s Branch (that is Stockton-on-Tees UKIP) for the current year ending February 2011.”

7.                  The judge refused permission to appeal.   By an appellant’s notice sealed on 16 December 2010, UKIP applied to this court for permission to appeal on a variety of grounds.  Permission was refused on paper by Lord Justice Elias despite his view that certain of the grounds were arguable.  Upon UKIP’s oral application made to this court on 19 April 2011, Lord Justice Ward granted permission on condition that no order for costs would be sought against Mr Hardy. Mr Engelman told us that, when he appeared before Lord Justice Ward, he had not appreciated that the application had been lodged by UKIP alone and that permission to appeal had therefore been granted on that basis. He sought permission for Mr Parkin (whom he also represented) to be joined as an appellant before us. We granted permission, being satisfied that the point to be argued on Mr Parkin’s behalf was one of law, was fully set out in Mr Engelman’s grounds of appeal and came as no surprise to Mr Hardy.

The Relationship of UKIP with its Members

8.                  UKIP is, it appears, an incorporated rather than an unincorporated members’ association. However the word “Limited” does not appear in its title and I proceed upon the basis that it is a company limited by guarantee with a dispensation from that requirement under s.30 of the Companies Act 1985. It is not in issue for the purposes of this appeal that UKIP’s relationship with its members is, like that of an unincorporated association, founded on the basis of contract and governed by the rules of the association. Consequently, no member may be expelled or suspended for disciplinary or other reasons unless there is a power to do so provided for in the rules, the procedures laid down in such rules are complied with, and the principles of natural justice observed: see John v Rees [1970] Ch 345 at 396 G – 402 A.  See also Dawkins v Antrobus [1881] LR 17 and 615 at 630 per Brett LJ at the first paragraph of his judgment.

9.                  Before proceeding to the detail of the case and the grounds of appeal it is helpful to set out the relevant provisions of the UKIP Constitution and the Rules to which reference has been made in the course of this appeal.

10.              The relevant parts of the UKIP Constitution provide:

4. Membership

“4.1 Membership is open to UK citizens and resident foreign nationals over the age of 16 years of age who share [UKIP’s] aims and who are not members of any other political party or organisation, membership of which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared as incompatible with membership of the party…

4.2 If a member of UKIP subsequently joins such a party or organisation which the NEC has declared to be incompatible with membership of the party, or if the member is found to be a member of such a party or organisation, then their membership of the party will be automatically revoked.

                        . . .

4.4 Members must maintain their subscriptions.

4.5 Members should accept the Party’s constitution and rules made in accordance with this constitution and do nothing to undermine the reputation of the party or to bring the party into public disrepute. Nor shall they act in a manner intended to cause, or actually causing, damage to the Party’s interests including by wilful disruptive conduct or by breaching confidentiality.

4.6 Where constituency associations are established, membership shall be of the local Parliamentary Constituency Association and, by affiliation of the Constituency Association, of the National Party.

                        . . .

4.9 Members shall receive a membership card and the Party’s newsletter. They shall be entitled to vote in all the relevant internal Party elections.

4.10 Members are of “good standing” if their subscriptions are up to date and they are not subject to any suspension or exclusion from elected office or from standing as a candidate of any sort.

5 Constituency Associations

5.1 The party shall seek to establish an association in every UK Parliamentary constituency. Constituency associations will affiliate to the National Party by resolution at their first official meeting.

5.2 As a first duty constituency associations shall prepare, organise and fight elections within their constituency and shall nominate and campaign for a UKIP candidate in all UK Parliamentary elections and in as many local government elections as shall be expedient.

5.3 The constituency association has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs subject to the constituency rule book approved by the NEC from time to time including the election of local officers and the selection of candidates for UK Parliamentary and Local Government Elections, such election to be made in accordance with rules established by the NEC from time to time.

5.4 Where an organisation covers more than one parliamentary constituency it shall be know as a Branch and paragraph 5.2 shall apply to it as if it were a constituency association.

                        . . .

13 Standing and Temporary Committees

13.1 The Standing Committee set up by the NEC shall include a . . . Discipline Committee.

                        . . .

14 Discipline

The Party shall establish a Discipline Committee comprising of the Party’s secretary and up to 10 members approved by the Annual Business Meeting from fully paid – up members. The Party Secretary and a minimum of four members of the Discipline Committee shall conduct specific hearings in accordance with the appropriate rules which shall be made by the NEC from time to time.

. . .

15 The Party Rules

The NEC shall establish the rules governing Constituency Associations; . . . disciplinary procedures and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management, conduct and administration of the Party save where such rules are already laid down in this constitution.”

11.              The Branch and Constituency Association Rules provide as follows:

“These rules should be read in conjunction with the Party Constitution, which, in the event of a clash, shall always take precedence.

. . .

1 Status and Authority

1.1 The basic units of the Party are the Constituency Association and Branches, established under section 5 of the Party Constitution. They shall uphold the principles of the constitution and are responsible to the National Executive Committee via the Party Chairman or his delegate who will normally be a regional organiser.

                                      . . .

1.4 The primary functions of the Constituency Associations  and Branches are to select and support candidates for Parliamentary and local elections, to assist in Euro/election campaigns, recruit new members, raise funds and generally to promote the Party in its policies.

                                      . . .

1.7 Constituency Associations and Branches shall both be managed under these rules and both are hereinafter referred to as Branches.

. . .

2. Membership

2.1 All Party members of the Branch in which they live                   shall be entitled to participate in its activities…

2.3 Party members may, on request, become a member of another branch, subject to the agreement of the receiving Branch Committee.

3. Branch Committees

3.1 Branches are responsible for their own actions and financial affairs.

3.2 A Branch Committee shall have a minimum of two members and would not normally have more then 8 members in total.

3.3 The three principal Branch Officers, Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary shall all be Committee members.

. . .

3.8 Duties of Branch Officers.

3.8.1 The Chairman has a principal responsibility for the direction of the Branch and shall normally chair all meetings including the AGM.

. . .”

7 Disputes

7.1 Incidents may arise when differences within a branch threaten its proper functioning. Every effort shall be made to resolve these at the local level, either by the Branch Committee or as a full meeting of the Branch. If it does not succeed, the dispute shall be referred to the regional organiser, acting on behalf of the Party chairman.

7.2 If the dispute remains irreconcilable, or if the Party Chairman deems that the behaviour of the committee or its officers is inconsistent with the Party’s constitution or principles, the Party Chairman will suspend or dissolve the Committee or dissolve the Branch.”

12.              It is to be noted that there is no provision for the disciplining of UKIP members at Branch level. The relevant provisions are those contained in clauses 14 and 15 of the Constitution (see above), which provide for disciplinary proceedings to take place before the Disciplinary Committee of the Party.  In this connection, however, neither the judge below nor this court have been referred to any “Rules governing ... disciplinary procedures” to which reference appears in clause 15 of the Constitution, and the case has proceeded both below and before this court on the basis that there are no such rules in existence.

13.              Broadly put, therefore, it will be seen that under its Constitution and Rules UKIP carries on its activities through a number of Branches, all UKIP Party members being members of the Branch established in the area where they live and the Branch Rules fall to be read in conjunction with and subject to the rules contained in the constitution of UKIP, such combined rules constituting the contract between UKIP and its individual members. Under the Constitution, the higher management of UKIP is in the hands of the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) including the establishment of disciplinary procedures, and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management, conduct and administration of the Party (see clauses 7 and 15), including the establishment of a Discipline Committee to conduct specific disciplinary hearings in accordance with appropriate rules (clause 14). The running of the day to day affairs of UKIP members (who are entitled to participate in the activities of their local Branch) is delegated to the Branch Committees, the Chairman of each such committee having the principal responsibility for the direction of the Branch and normally chairing all meetings of that Branch. The Branch Committee does not have any disciplinary power or function. When disputes or differences within a Branch arise which threaten its proper functioning, it is the duty of the Branch Committee, either in Committee or at a full meeting of the Branch to seek to resolve such dispute and, if unsuccessful, to refer the matter to the regional organiser for action by the Party Chairman. (Rule 7).

            The Factual Background

14.              At one time Mr Hardy was a member of the British National Party (“BNP”) from which he resigned in June 2005. He has never rejoined. In February 2007 he applied to become a member of UKIP and his application was accepted. He became a member of the Stockton Branch of which Mr Parkin was and is Branch Chairman. He was quickly active in the Branch, becoming its press officer in which role he was commended by UKIP’s head office where he was well known to senior officials, who were well aware of his former membership of BNP.  However, he was not successful in his ambition to be adopted as a Parliamentary Candidate.

15.              Despite his successful role as press officer, Mr Hardy did not get on with Mr Parkin, such that in November 2007 Mr Hardy resigned his post as press officer, writing to Mr Parkin that he would not serve the branch in any post so long as Mr Parkin remained Chairman. However, he continued in active membership, attending Branch meetings and working to further the aims and activities of the Branch and UKIP. He renewed his subscription and membership on 1 February 2008 and again on 1 February 2009 despite the continuation of his bad relations with Mr Parkin.

16.              Matters came to a head in the Winter of 2008/2009 when a dispute arose as to whether Mr Parkin had distributed leaflets to each house on a housing estate, so that Mr Hardy and a fellow member, Mr Himmelblau, conducted a door to door enquiry which, in turn, Mr Parkin dubbed inadequate and misleading. This issue led to cross-accusations of lying.

17.              In January 2009 Mr Hardy and Mr Himmelblau asked Mr Parkin to stand down as Branch Chairman on the grounds of his incompetence in that role and the fact that the local membership of the UKIP was not increasing. Mr Parkin refused. The February meeting under Mr Parkin’s chairmanship had to be brought to an end prematurely when the caretaker of the hall where it was held asked everyone present to leave the building on account of the noise from the raised voices.

18.              At two subsequent monthly Branch meetings on 20 January and 17 February 2009, voices were again raised and cross- accusations were made by Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin, each stating that the other was a liar. On 10 March Mr Parkin circulated Branch members to the effect he had decided that there would be no Branch meeting that month. He wrote:

“matters were raised at our last meeting and are of concern to members are being dealt with and a report will be issued as soon as practical”

19.              Between the end of March and late June Mr Hardy was away in Saudi Arabia on a teaching job. Whilst he was there, in the context of the continuing bad relations between Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin, the UKIP Party Chairman Mr Nuttall wrote to him at his UK address inviting him to meet the General Secretary, Mr Arnott, and himself on 14 April. Mr Hardy did not receive the letter until 6 May 2009 following his return, and so could not have attended the meeting even had he been so inclined.

20.              On 17 May 2009 Mr Hardy wrote to Mr Challice, the Administration Manager at UKIP Head Office explaining the position, only to receive a reply dated 29 May 2009 (copied to the Chairman and Secretary of UKIP, the Regional Organiser and Mr Parkin) stating that, since Mr Hardy had not “bothered to attend” the proposed meeting and had sent an abusive letter concerning the late arrival of the letter of 30 March:

“I have decided that this office has better things to do and henceforth will have no further dealings with you.

If you wish to write to the Party Chairman your letters will be forwarded. Any letter or e-mails to me will find their way to a different destination. I will also give instructions to Head Office staff not to engage in conversation with you on the telephone. I will not engage with you on the telephone”

21.              On his return from Saudi Arabia, Mr Hardy e-mailed the new Branch Secretary, Dr Goyns, asking him to telephone him only to receive a reply from Mr Goyns that, on Mr Parkin’s advice, it would be inappropriate for them to meet.

22.              Following further correspondence between Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin, on 11 September 2009 the latter wrote to Mr Hardy. Having referred to “ repeated complaints” by Mr Hardy about Mr Parkin’s Chairmanship, he stated that they had been:

“dealt with at every level within the Party, up to the level of Party Chairman and at all levels they have seen your complaints were unfounded and without substance…

I have once again taken valuable advice from our regional organiser and I have decided on the following actions, which I shall give my reasoning for this action.

It has been decided that you will no longer be permitted to attend any Branch meeting of which I am chairman. The reasoning for this is as follows:

At your two attendances at Branch meetings you did bring the meeting into disrepute.

At your last attendance at the Branch meeting at Kiora all your actions and outbursts created an embarrassing situation which led to the eviction from that venue and the prevention of our return…

Clearly you are dissatisfied with the Party and the way in which it operates and for this reason I strongly recommend that you will withdraw from your membership of the Party forthwith…

As of this point in time I have advised the Branch Secretary not to enter into any further communications with you or your colleagues.

I and the Party have dealt with your complaints and dissatisfactions as they have arisen and we can do no more at this level.

Should you wish to take the matter further then your only option left is to go through Head Office.”

23.              On 13 November 2009 Mr Hardy issued proceedings in the Middlesbrough District Registry (Claim No. 03865) against Mr Parkin as Chairman of the Stockton-on-Tees Branch of the party. He sought a declaration that Mr Parkin’s action in banning him from attendance at Branch meetings was unwarranted and that he had no power to impose such a ban on a summary basis. Mr Hardy asserted that the ban was in breach of the Human Rights Act and claimed such compensation as the court should think appropriate. In his Defence delivered on 16 January 2010, Mr Parkin pleaded, inter alia, that the Branch meetings of UKIP were private meetings, that no cause of action was available to the defendant under the Human Rights Act and denied that he was in any contractual relationship with the claimant or owed him any duty upon which this cause of action could be based.

24.              In early 2010, with renewal of his membership due on 1 February 2010, Mr Hardy was not sent a renewal form from Head Office in the usual way. He wrote tendering his subscription on 11 February 2010 and asked to receive his new membership card “within the next 7 days”. He received a reply on 19 February 2010 from Mrs Duffy, the Party Director, stating that, by administrative error, the National Executive Committee had not been informed of his former membership of the BNP and that before his membership could be renewed the NEC “must be given a proper opportunity fully to consider the matter”. She returned his £10 membership renewal cheque.

25.              On 3 March 2010 Mr Hardy issued proceedings against UKIP in the Middlesbrough County Court (Claim No. OMB 00631) claiming that his membership of the Party had not been renewed and that such an action was ‘against the Constitution’ of UKIP and a breach of his Human Rights.  The claim was subsequently transferred to the District Registry under the same number and Particulars of Claim dated 22 March 2010 were filed, claiming that the failure to renew was unwarranted, UKIP having no power to exclude Mr Hardy from the Party on a summary basis.  It claimed that “the expulsion” be quashed.

26.              On 23 March 2010 Mrs Duffy sent a further letter to Mr Hardy to say that the NEC had considered his application and “on the information currently available … [the NEC]… would have no objection to your membership should you choose to apply”. Mr Hardy did not see that letter, until a good deal later, attached to UKIP’s defence in the proceedings dated 4 May 2010.

27.              After seeing it, however, Mr Hardy did not choose to make a “new” application for membership as invited, but stood upon his position that, as a member in good standing, he was entitled to automatic renewal in the ordinary way, without such renewal being treated and considered as a fresh application for membership subject to the approval of the National Executive Committee.

28.              By paragraph 2 of its Defence dated 4 May 2010 in Claim No. 00631 UKIP characterised the position as one in which Mr Hardy had applied for renewal of his membership, but which application “had not yet been processed”. However, UKIP did nothing subsequently to process Mr Hardy’s application.  It relied on the second letter from Mrs Duffy to Mr Hardy dated 23 March 2010 and stated simply that no further application for renewal had been received.  Furthermore at the hearing, despite the terms of its defence, UKIP produced a statement of Mr Arnott, the General Secretary of UKIP, in the form of a Memorandum dated 8 September 2010, which stated as follows in relation to Mr Hardy’s membership:

“In March 2010 the UK Independence Party wrote to Mr Allan Hardy stating that if he were to choose to renew his Party membership then his renewal would be accepted and that internal Disciplinary Proceedings would immediately commence against him as a result of his alleged actions at Party meetings.

The UK Independence Party considers people whose subscriptions are up to 3 months out of date to still remain as lapsed members on the database and entitled to renew without such renewal being considered to be fresh application for membership. As more than 3 months have passed without such renewal in this case, any further application to join the UK Independence Party from Mr Hardy would be treated in the same way as a new membership application.

It is the policy of the UK Independence Party not to accept membership applications from former BNP members and activists; any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would therefore now be rejected on those grounds.

The Judgment

29.              The judge made the following findings as the basis for his decision:

(1)   That membership of UKIP was open to Mr Hardy as a person within the terms of Clause 4.1 of the Constitution and he had done nothing to lose his entitlement to membership under clauses 4.2 or 4.3.

(2)   That neither the Constitution nor the Rules provided for expulsion or suspension in the circumstances of Mr Hardy’s case.

(3)   That so far as Mr Parkin was concerned, his letter of 11 September 2009 banning Mr Hardy from attending Branch meetings on the ground that the previous two meetings had brought UKIP into disrepute were not, (as had been argued), justified as an exercise of the Chairman’s authority under Rules 3.1 and 3.8.1, or as a legitimate form of dispute resolution under Rule 7. On the contrary, Mr Parkin had acted autocratically taking sole responsibility for what was in effect a suspension of Mr Hardy’s membership without having (i) called an emergency meeting of the Branch Committee under Rule 4.1.1 (ii) convened a dispute resolution meeting of the Branch Committee or of the whole Branch under Rule 7.1 or (iii) given Mr Hardy a reasonable opportunity to put forward a case of his own as to why he should not be suspended or excluded from Branch meetings. Mr Parkin’s letter was in breach of the Rules and a decision taken in breach of natural justice.

(4)   That the effect of such letter and/or suspension was (albeit unwittingly on her part) compounded by Mrs Duffy by her letters in March 2010, the first of which rejected Mr Hardy’s renewal subscription and the second of which informed him that he needed to re-apply if his membership was to be restored.

(5)   The subsequent attempt by Mr Arnott in his statement of 8 September 2010 to rely upon Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP as a reason to reject any further application made by Mr Hardy to renew his membership was found by the judge to be a deliberate contrivance to exclude Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP and to do so on spurious grounds (see para 12 of judgment), the reference to his former membership of the BNP being “a fig leaf… which disclosed an urgent desire to expel Mr Hardy at any price”  (see para 16 of judgment). As such it was confirmatory of the intention of UKIP to exclude Mr Hardy from membership.

30.              The Judge went on to award Mr Hardy the sum of £750 as damages for some 12 months’ deprivation of the enjoyment and satisfaction of pursuing his political aims and activities as a member of his local Branch of UKIP.

The Grounds of Appeal

31.              Before this court, Mr Engelman restricted his submissions to pursuit of five of the grounds of appeal advanced in his original skeleton argument.  He does not pursue any appeal in respect of the quantum of damages ordered by the judge should the appeal(s) on liability fail.  

32.              I shall deal first with that ground which relates to the judge’s belated joinder of the Stockton-on-Tees Branch of UKIP as a defendant for the purposes of his judgment. I have already touched upon this aspect in paragraph 4 above. 

33.              In the course of his submissions to the Judge, Mr Holland, counsel who represented UKIP below, aired the suggestion in relation to the actions of Mr Parkin that under the Constitution and Rules of UKIP, the Branch had the status of an autonomous unit responsible through its chairman for the administration of its own affairs (see Rules1-3) and thus the Branch rather than UKIP was the appropriate defendant in respect of any wrongful actions on the part of its chairman Mr Parkin. When the Judge expressed doubt and concern at the ramifications of this argument, the position was reached whereby counsel, having taken instructions from UKIP, accepted that UKIP were the appropriate defendant answerable in respect of Mr Parkin’s actions and the events in 2009.  Mr Holland explained that he did not represent the Branch as an entity and was in no position to take instructions on behalf of its members before close of submissions at the end of the afternoon, a position which the judge appeared to accept. Thereafter, there was no further communication on that topic between counsel and the judge before the handing down of the reserved judgment and the making of the order which I have quoted in paragraph 6 above.

34.              It seems clear to me that, the judge was in error in subsequently deciding to join the Branch as a party in the proceedings for the purposes of his judgment.

35.              First, the members of the local Branch (unlike UKIP) enjoy no corporate identity which enables them to be sued in their own name as a single entity. Considered as a group they were no more than an unincorporated association consisting of a finite number of members who, whilst potentially amenable to suit under the provisions of CPR 19.6, might or might not have been aware of the claim and had no opportunity to consider their position or make representations in relation thereto.

36.              Second, given the acceptance on behalf of UKIP that it was answerable for the actions of Mr Parkin, such joinder was quite unnecessary.

37.              Third, it was not an amendment sought by Mr Hardy who, before this court, expressed himself content that UKIP should be answerable for his claim on the basis of its liability for the actions of Mr Parkin as the Branch Chairman in 2009. I would therefore set aside the joinder of the Branch as a Party in the proceedings.

38.       The second ground of appeal relates to the judgment against Mr Parkin.  Mr Engelman submits that, whatever the position in relation to UKIP (see further below), there was no contractual nexus between Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin on the basis of which to give judgment against Mr Parkin.  It was not in dispute between the parties that, in all his dealings with Mr Hardy, Mr Parkin was acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Stockton-on-Tees Branch of UKIP (and not in his personal capacity as a mere fellow member), in relation to whose actions counsel acknowledged UKIP to be liable in the course of argument (see paragraph 33 above).  Furthermore, at paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Judge accepted counsel’s submission that it was the law of contract which fell to be applied in ascertaining the rights of the parties inter se, which rights derived from the Constitution and Rules (paragraph 16 of judgment). 

39.       Again, it seems to me that Mr Engelman is correct in his submission as to the contractual position and, although Mr Parkin’s conduct falls for examination as an agent of UKIP for whose actions UKIP is answerable, I would allow the appeal insofar as it relates to Mr Parkin personally. 

40.       The third ground of appeal was but faintly pursued by Mr Engelman and can be dealt with shortly.  Before the judge below, and indeed in his Skeleton Argument as filed, Mr Engelman relied on rule 3.8.1 as vesting in Mr Hardy, as Chairman of the Branch, the authority to ban Mr Hardy from attending future branch meetings.  Before this Court, Mr Engelman expressly abandoned reliance upon rule 3.8.1 in that regard.  Nonetheless, he submitted that, in writing his letter of 11 September 2009, Mr Parkin was doing no more than exercise in advance a power inherent in the Chairman of a Branch meeting to preserve order and control disruptive behaviour by members in attendance, such advance exercise being justified by Mr Parkin’s earlier experience in Branch meetings. 

41.       In my view that is an untenable submission and the Judge was right to find as he did for the reasons summarised at paragraph 29(3) above.  The Judge’s observations that the letter “effectively suspended” Mr Hardy’s membership (paragraph 18 of the judgment) was plainly correct.  It amounted to a summary and indefinite ban from participation in the affairs of the Branch, for which no authority was to be found in the Constitution or Rules and without the invocation of any of the procedural safeguards provided in the Rules or the disciplinary function of the UKIP Disciplinary Committee (see clause 14 of the Constitution). 

42.       The fourth ground of appeal relates to the Judge’s collective treatment of the correspondence together with Mr Arnott’s Memorandum in reaching his conclusion that UKIP “purported to expel” Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP. 

43.     It focuses on two passages in the judgment.  The first appears at paragraph 14 where the judge, having recited the facts (including reference to those documents) stated:

“Thus on these facts I have no hesitation in finding that in effect both Mr Parkin and UKIP purported to expel Mr Hardy from the membership of Branch and Party.  Was either entitled in law to do so?”

44.              The second passage appears at paragraph 19 of the judgment where, having considered the actions of Mr Parkin and described them as effectively amounting to a  suspension of Mr Hardy’s membership, the  judge stated:      

“19. The effect of such an act is compounded by the impression unwittingly given by Mrs Duffy but unambiguously announced by Mr Arnott by his general message of 10 September.  The only reference sensibly to be drawn is that the senior party officers were backing and reinforcing Mr Parkin’s act and were not having Mr Hardy back”.”

45.       In short, Mr Engelman submits that neither the actions of Mr Parkin as Branch Chairman, culminating in his letter of 11 September, nor Miss Duffy, by her letters of 19 February or 23 March, purported to expel Mr Hardy.  Mr Engelman submits that Mr Parkin’s letter was simply an action taken at Branch level which, whether or not it amounted to a breach of the Constitution and/or Rules, was no more than a denial or a suspension of Mr Hardy’s right to attend Branch meetings.  Miss Duffy’s letters were in turn no more than a holding operation enabling the matter of Mr Hardy’s renewal of membership to be considered by the National Executive Committee rather than being rubber-stamped in the usual way.  So far as Mr Arnott’s Memorandum was concerned, Mr Engelman conceded that its effect was indicative of an intention to expel at that post-proceedings stage, but submitted that the Judge was in error in using its content to construe an intent to expel on the part of UKIP as at the commencement of proceedings. 

46.       I do not consider that Mr Engelman’s submissions afford any grounds to undermine the findings of the Judge or Mr Hardy’s entitlement to the relief he obtained against UKIP. 

47.       In order for Mr Hardy to establish a cause of action and/or grounds for relief against UKIP at trial, it was necessary for him to establish a substantial interference with his rights in the form of a breach or breaches of his contract of membership as provided in the Constitution and Rules, and it is clear from the Judge’s findings that he did so.  In this respect it is to be noted that, despite the pejorative force of the term “expulsion”, it is not a term of art.  In the context of a claim by a member of a trade union or other association, it means no more or less than a termination by the association of the claimant’s membership against that member’s will.  Such expulsion may or may not be lawful depending upon the terms of the membership contract (in particular in relation to disciplinary matters) and the reasons for the action taken.  The term “expulsion” may usefully be used in contrast with “suspension” which involves temporary and/or indefinite interruption or removal of membership rights short of termination, but either will entitle the claimant to a remedy if proved to have been imposed in breach of contract. 

48.       In this case, as I have already indicated (see paragraph 34 above), the Judge made a clear and correct finding that Mr Parkin’s letter effectively suspended Mr Hardy’s membership rights, and that his actions were in breach of the Constitution and Rules and the rules of natural justice (see paragraph 18 of Judgment).  These were of course actions for which UKIP was liable as accepted by Counsel before the Judge (see paragraph 31 above). 

49.       Against the background that Mr Hardy had already started proceedings against Mr Parkin in respect of his suspension, Miss Duffy wrote her letter of 19 February refusing immediate renewal of Mr Hardy’s membership and returning his cheque.  She did so despite the fact that there were no good grounds for such refusal and, indeed, the necessity for Mr Hardy to maintain his subscription if he were to be considered a member in good standing (see Constitution at 4.4, (4.9 and 4.10).  That in turn was a breach of contract, the effect of which meant that, at the date of proceedings, Mr Hardy had ceased to be a member, thereby exposing him to the risk on reapplication of an adverse decision as to his acceptability as a member by the National Executive Committee, despite the fact that his former connection to the BNP was well known to the Party Chairman and other senior officers of UKIP. 

50.       That was the position in which matters stood when the consolidated actions were tried before the Judge, save that the risk to Mr Hardy of refusal on reapplication had developed into a certainty. 

51.       There had, of course, been two material letters written after the proceedings against UKIP commenced.  The first was Miss Duffy’s letter dated 23 March 2010 which indicated that, should Mr Hardy choose to reapply for membership, the National Executive Committee would have no objection “on the information currently available”.  However such an indication did not remove the effect of Miss Duffy’s earlier letter, but rather affirmed it as an assertion that Mr Hardy’s membership had lapsed, that he did not currently enjoy the status of membership of UKIP, but could apply for membership (with the likelihood of a favourable outcome) if he chose to do so:  (paragraph 13 of the judgment). 

52.       Without receiving any response or reapplication from Mr Hardy, however, the stance of UKIP vis-à-vis reinstatement of his membership was set out in Mr Arnott’s Memorandum of 8 September 2010.  At the same time as misstating the position as at March 2010 in the first paragraph, Mr Arnott made clear that any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would be rejected. 

53.       The Judge was therefore right to hold in general terms that the cumulative effect of the communications between the parties was a purported expulsion of Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP, thereby entitling Mr Hardy to the relief he was granted against UKIP in the form of a declaration as to his continuing membership and damages in respect of the interference with his membership rights.  So far as his “expulsion” was concerned, Mr Hardy’s right to a declaration in that respect had accrued as a result of Mrs Duffy’s letter of 19 February prior to his commencement of proceedings against UKIP.  However, in the light of the arguments as to the ambiguity of his then position raised before the judge at trial, it was nonetheless appropriate for the Judge to consider the  position as it appeared at the date of trial for the purposes of determining the nature and extent of the relief to which Mr Hardy was entitled. 

54.       It was in these circumstances that the judge made the findings of “purported expulsion” which Mr Engelman criticises.  As already indicated, in my view those criticisms do not constitute any ground for interference with the judge’s decision or the relief which he granted against UKIP.

55.       Mr Engelman’s fifth ground of appeal relates to certain passages in the judgment where, in deciding whether or not Mr Parkin and/or UKIP had acted lawfully or unlawfully, he invoked the doctrine of reasonableness and proportionality. 

56.       Again I consider that there is no substance in this ground of appeal.  Reference to the proportionality principle first surfaces at paragraph 16 of the judgment where the Judge records a submission of Mr Holland in terms which are somewhat difficult to follow:

“…as the Constitution does not provide for expulsion and where they are silent as to the procedure of the rules of natural justice and that of a fair trial are to be applied, and where this last applies the claimant [sic] needs to prove that his case was dealt with by a reasonable and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case.”

It seems to me that the reference to “the claimant” is a mistake for the defendant.

57.       Thereafter the judge makes three references to the principle of proportionality.   The first two are at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment, in relation to Mr Parkin’s action in banning Mr Hardy’s attendance at future Branch meetings.  The third is in a more general context namely whether, having regard to his political views and the fact that the Stockton branch was the only branch to which he could belong by reason of his place of abode. Mr Hardy was “treated fairly, reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the Branch Rules by Mr Parkin and UKIP” (paragraph 20 of the judgment­). 

58.       Mr Engelman submits that concepts of reasonableness and proportionately which are appropriate to Judicial Review and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights are not similarly applicable in relation to the private contractual rules of an association, which, at most, attract the principles of good faith, natural justice and the right to a fair trial.

59.       In that respect, it seems to me that Mr Engelman’s submission is correct, but I fail to see that it is a point which assists him in this case.  As I have already indicated, the judge held UKIP liable on the basis of the true construction of the rules and UKIP’s failure to follow the requirements of natural justice.  If, in reaching his decision, the judge also considered the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality, such consideration was to the potential advantage of UKIP albeit, in the event, the judge held that such requirements were not satisfied.

Conclusion

60.     (1) I would allow the appeal of Mr Parkin and set aside the judgment against him. 

(2)   I would set aside the judgment below insofar as it purports to apply to the Stockton-on-Tees Branch of UKIP. 

(3)   I would dismiss the appeal of UKIP. Consequential amendments to the wording of the Order below will be required to reflect (1) and (2) above.

Lord Justice Tomlinson:                   

61.       I agree.            

Lord Justice Ward :                          

62.              I also agree. 

Do also see: CLICK HERE

Make your vote count vote:

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 

LEAVE-THE-EU

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 - 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar<  
Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 

Related articles

• #0640* - It Seems Another Branch Is Trashed by UKIP Stupidity! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0601* - Un-professional Responses Demean Ukip (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0597* - a Verdict Today? Ukip Onto a Loser in Court Yet Again (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• John Paul ISON Features on http://ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com (john-ison.blogspot.com)
• #0588* - Ukip Onto a Loser in Court Yet Again (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0602* - HOW NOT TO DO POLITICS by Mick McGOUGH & UKIP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0645* - UKIP LEADERSHIP seems UTTERLY IRRESPONSIBLE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0658* - UKIP Led by Farage is Just A "Grubby Little Organisation" (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0676* - UKIP In Trouble Over Racism it Seems! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0634* - UKIP's UTTERLY IRRESPONSIBLE LIES (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL

HARDY, Alan vs. UKIP - JUDGEMENT & APPEAL 

Friday, 22 July 2011

UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

• ORIGINAL CASE NOV-2010
• FULL JUDGEMENT
• UKIP APPEAL AGAINST GUILTY VERDICT
• JUDGEMENT & VERDICT
• UKIP GUILTY

 Please Be Sure To
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU  

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!    
.

~We may have A VERDICT TODAY? 
I believe yet again UKIP are ONTO A LOSER IN COURT!

They are happy to duck dive lie and defame to use members' money to dishonestly renege on their moral duty to pay their bills with integrity!

I wonder if they would be so free with legal costs if it came out of their pockets but as was recently published by a UKIP MEP £140,000 of legal costs is not considered significant - well it wouldn't be it is from other peoples pockets!

VERDICT ADDED

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

I gather we may well see a verdict to my posting made a week or so ago which I have posted as a repeat below to remind you.

The case came to Court yesterday so we may well have a verdict later today:

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

.

Win, Draw or Lose The Members Will Again Be The Losers!

Just as UKIP's failure to honour the British Courts and their verdict to pay me the £12.1/2K has done nothing but show them for the dishonest, corrupt incompetents that they are!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

so yet again UKIP will be in Court squandering members' money or has some gullible fool put up the £30 - £40 - £50,000 it will take to yet again learn their lesson!

Time and again UKIP finds itself in Court and rarely it seems do they win - each time costing members money and almost without fail garnering bad publicity.

Many will have heard how UKIP set out to harass me and not only did they lose their case but they have failed to honour their debt resultant which runs to something over £12.1/2K - UKIP lack even the integrity to settle that moral debt and have utterly ignored the British Courts whom they clearly hold in contempt having on various occasions sheltered behind The EUropean Courts and employment in EUrope to seek to duck their responsibilities or hide their fundamental corruption.

This time rather than honour the Court Judgement and pay compensation of £750 reinstating a member who they had accepted in full knowledge of his background and fully approved by Nigel Farage - now we see them gambling with other peoples' money when they KNOW that their costs will far exceed the £750 the Court ordered them to pay.

UKIP whether it wins, draws or loses will be 10s of £1,000s of pounds out of pocket.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

It may be worth their while reading Marta Andreasen's call for removal of Farage as leader once again and in detail!

"Party members and supporters are justifiably angry. After promises of success and claims that the party would triple the number of its seats, after large amounts of party members and donors money was spent on what was a poorly led campaign, the result was frankly dismal. I do not for one minute lay any blame for the results at the candidates or party workers door. Their work-rate and commitment to UKIP is beyond reproach. This campaign was masterminded at the top and that is where the axe must fall.

"As someone who passionately shares UKIP ideals and who works day in day out to further the party message in the European Parliament and in my constituency of the South East, the result was a bitter disappointment.

"It is time for change. Mr Farage has abjectly failed to deliver and is not leading the party on the course to victory. Even he must recognise this fact.

"I am calling on him to step down as Leader of UKIP and make room for a new Leader who resonates more with the public and who will move us forward to where I know we should be.

"UKIP can become an even more significant and powerful voice of dissent towards the UK government's ongoing capitulation to the European Union. It should also build on articulating the concerns of the Great British public on a number of home policy fronts. With the Liberal Democrats in free-fall, Labour in a mess and the Conservatives popularity on the wane, there are opportunities to be grasped.

"I do not believe that these opportunities will ever come to fruition with Mr Farage as Leader." Ends

ADDITION:

It is noted that:

Marta Andreasen having circulated her statement yesterday afternoon finally let members of UKIP know on her blog at mid day 10-May-2011 

CLICK HERE

For Further Data on Marta ANDREASEN CLICK HERE

ANDREASEN DATA END.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Subject: GENERAL NEWS
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:20 +0100

Hello everyone,

I'm sure most, if not all of you know, that I obtained judgment in the High Court last year against not only the local chairman of the political party of which I am a member, but also the party itself.

The defendant's did not like that and appealed. The appeal is to be heard next week in the Court of Appeal in London. As at the original hearing, I shall be representing myself. And, as a condition of the appeal, the other side will not be able to claim costs against me even if they win - and I'll see to it they don't! They also have a new barrister on the job; it appears the original one left his chambers for pastures new some time after the hearing last September. I can't understand why. Perhaps losing against a layman was more than his professional constitution could bear. But that's his problem. Anyway it'll be yours truly up before the 'big beaks' next week!

I've been on something of a weight loss/fitness programme these past six weeks. I've lost a total of 16 lbs, which I suppose is fairly good going. Over the last few weeks, however, this has plateau'd to a loss of 1 lb per week, which I came to find discouraging, especially after all the effort it takes. It reached the point where, on Saturday night just gone - I weigh myself each Saturday morning - I resolved to give it up as a bad job and go back to being a fat slob again.

The next morning I woke up and, having drunk my first coffee of the day, went off to buy a copy of the last edition of the News of the World. Now I haven't bought a copy of that newspaper for YEARS, but as it was the last opportunity to do so I thought I'd see what it had to offer.

I had a good look through it. The glossy supplement didn't have much of interest to men, apart from a lovely picture of the luminously beautiful Thandie Newton near the front. There was the obligatory crossword near the end and on the opposite page were the star forecasts for the week. Now my star sign is Leo, so I had a look at what the resident clairvoyant had to say. It was this (and you can check on it):

"YOU HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO START, OR RESTART, A FITNESS PLAN AND ENSURE IT WORKS"

Mystic Meg saves the day.

BYE FOR NOW

ALAN

How can such folly backing a sure financial loser be of ANY merit to Farage or UKIP or least of all its members and credibility.

Is this how UKIP sees itself acting were it ever to gain power in any context of consequence not merely Mare for a village in Cambridgeshire!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Extract & Comment From The Judgement:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.

So Farage hates the BNP? 

We think not. After all, he is more than happy to sit with fascists in The EFD PEPP Group!

Would you, indeed could you trust Farage's UKIP to run the country or any small part of it, based on its track record of dishonesty, bullying and corruption - let alone its associates! They can't even respect the laws of the land? 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

. Indeed, they have nothing but contempt for the laws of the land it would seem and here is yet another judgement against them in The Courts!

The Judgement in full:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MIDDLESBROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRY

CASE NOS. 9MB03865
AND 0MB00631

BETWEEN

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

GORDON H. PARKIN (DEFENDANT)

……….

ALAN HARDY (CLAIMANT)

AND

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED (DEFENDANTS)

JUDGMENT

1. This is a consolidated action for damages and for a declaration that the Claimant’s purported expulsion from membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party is null and void.

2. As I shall explain, the narrative of the matter of complaint covers two episodes; hence two actions until they were consolidated by Order. The first episode concerns the actions of Mr Gordon Parkin who at all material times was, as he remains, Branch Chairman of the Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP as I shall call the Party; the second episode concerns the actions by officers of the Party in their central organisation. Because the Claimant has at no time been represented by solicitor or counsel and because the point emerged only in the course of the Defendants’ counsel’s closing submissions I allow the Claimant to add as a defendant in the consolidated action Stockton on Tees Branch of UKIP. The reason for and significance of this will become apparent.

3. Essentially this is a hard fought political dispute in Stockton on Tees between Mr Hardy, supported by others some of whom have given evidence before me, and Mr Parkin the constitutionally elected Branch Chairman, no doubt with his supporters and apparently backed by the central organisation. In a nutshell Mr Hardy accuses Mr Parkin of being incompetent; dishonest and self seeking in his political ambitions so that the interests of UKIP are thereby ill served. Mr Parkin denies all this but accuses Mr Hardy of being so disruptive a member that it was impossible for the business of the branch to be done, as well as dishonesty in his attempts to unseat Mr Parkin from his position. Thankfully none of these matters is the concern of this Court which is able to determine the legal issues between the parties on a factual basis virtually of common ground, by which I mean an undisputed history of events and correspondence. I would add however, before turning to such uncontroversial territory, that having seen and heard Mr Hardy as his own advocate in these proceedings as well as a witness, and Mr Parkin as a witness, and given that the dispute between the two men is political, a subject invariably both powerful and sensitive in its nature, it is not difficult to see how temperamentally they could never work together in harmony. Mr Hardy is forceful of manner and frequently irrelevant in speech: Mr Parkin is quietly dogged and determined.

4. The following is, however, not in dispute and page numbering is with reference to the agreed trial bundle. For some time until he resigned in June 2005 Mr Hardy had been a member of the British National Party (BNP). In February 2007 his application to join UKIP was accepted. He became a member of the Stockton branch and was quickly active as such becoming its Press Officer as well as putting himself forward as a potential parliamentary candidate. Although unsuccessful in this latter ambition(Section 2 page 29) he received the commendation of UKIP’s head office in the former (Section 2, page 35). The significance of this factually is the actual knowledge which head office officials had of Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP, as also had Mr Nigel Farage MEP as may be seen from his correspondence with Mr Hardy(Section 2, page 26).

5. The date for membership renewal on payment of the appropriate subscription was 1st February each year. Mr Hardy’s membership was renewed in 2008 and 2009. Yet by this latter date all was not well within the Stockton branch. Indeed trouble had been brewing for some time. As early as 8th November 2007 Mr Hardy resigned his post as Press Officer and by letter of that date (Section 1, page 26.43) wrote to Mr Parkin that he would not serve “the branch in any post so long as you remain as chairman”. At some time during the winter of 2008/2009 a dispute arose as to whether Mr Parkin had distributed leaflets to each house or sufficiently on the Roseworth housing estate so that Mr Hardy and his supporter Mr Himmelblau conducted a partial enquiry door to door which in turn Mr Parkin dubbed inadequate and misleading. This issue led to cross accusations of lying.

6. On 8th January 2009 as Mr Himmelblau told me, and I accept, he and Mr Hardy met Mr Parkin by arrangement at the Central Library, Stockton and on grounds of incompetence and the fact that the membership was not increasing in size from a handful or so they asked Mr Parkin to stand down as branch chairman. He refused.

7. Branch meetings were approximately monthly. That for January 2009 was minuted (Section 1 page. 26.3) and held on 20th. That for February 2009 was held on 17th and as it was not minuted there is no record of the minutes for January being approved. There is only the notation (Section 1, page 26.7), “Minutes verified by GP before issue”. GP plainly refers to Mr Parkin and his perspective of that meeting and Mr Hardy’s part in it is clear. Worse was to follow because on 17th February the caretaker of the hall hired for the meeting of that date broke the meeting up and asked everyone present to leave the building on account of raised voices. Mr Hardy and Mr Parkin had each called the other a liar. The row was of such proportion that the building’s owners did not permit the Branch to return for a period of months.

8. On 10th March Mr Parkin wrote to all branch members (Section 1, page 26.20) that “Due to high campaign activity and the loss of our meeting venue we have decided that there will be no branch meeting this month……….. . Matters that were raised at our last meeting and are of concern to members are being dealt with and a report will be issued as soon as is practical”. Mr Parkin told me that “ we “ meant “I”.

9. From 29th March to 26th June Mr Hardy was in Saudi Arabia, teaching. Meanwhile, Mr Parkin having consulted a Mr Allison, UKIP’s regional organiser who had in turn passed the problem to Head Office, the Party Chairman Mr Paul Nuttall wrote to Mr Hardy on 30th March (Section 1, page 26.33) inviting him to meet the General Secretary, Mr Arnott, and himself on 14th April. Naturally Mr Hardy did not and could not either receive that letter in time or attend the meeting. Yet from his reply (Section 1, page 80A) it seems very doubtful that he would have gone if he could. Of significance however, in my view is the reply Mr Hardy received from Head Office (Section 2 page 33), “I have decided that this office had better things to do and henceforth will have no further dealings with you”.

10. Upon his return from Saudi Arabia and on 4th July Mr Hardy e-mailed the new Branch Secretary, Dr. Goyns (Section 1, page 26.56) asking him to telephone him. On 8th July Dr Goyns replied (Section 1, page 26.57) that on Mr Parkin’s advice, “it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you”. On 24th August Mr Hardy was writing to Mr Parkin (Section 1, page 26.18). On 11th September Mr Parkin wrote to Mr Hardy (Section 1, page 79), “I feel it is time I must set this matter to rest…..I have decided on the following actions …. you will no longer be permitted to attend any branch meeting of which I am Chairman”. His reasons were that Mr Hardy had brought the January and February “meetings into disrepute”, that at the February meeting his “actions and outbursts created an embarrassing situation which led to the eviction from that venue and the prevention of our return “, that he and his “colleagues decided to withdraw your support from UKIP in January of this year at both local and national levels” and that in his, Mr Parkin’s, opinion that was disloyal. He concluded, “I strongly recommend that you withdraw from the membership of the party forthwith…… . I have advised the branch secretary not to enter into any further communications with you…… . Should you wish to take the matter further then your only option left is to go through head office”. When he wrote this letter Mr Parkin told me he was aware that Mr Hardy had by then returned from Saudi Arabia. From the e-mails between Mr Hardy and Dr. Goyns it seems to me that Mr Parkin must have known that from early July.

11. There the matter lay until membership renewal time came round. Mr Hardy was not sent a renewal form from Head Office as was usual. He wrote on 30th January 2010 and 11th February (Section 2, pages 7 and 8) sending his subscription. On 19th February Lisa Duffy, Party Director, replied (Section 2 page 16) that when Mr Hardy left the BNP “to rejoin UKIP the National Executive Committee was not informed – as it should have been – and it was therefore unable to consider your re-application. This was an administrative error …… . In the circumstances I feel that before your membership is renewed the NEC must be given a proper opportunity to fully consider the matter. I am therefore referring this to the next meeting of the NEC and in the meantime am returning your £10 membership renewal cheque”. On 23rd March Mrs Duffy wrote again (Section 2 page 17) that the NEC had considered the matter and “would have no objection to your membership should you choose to apply”.

12. This is at serious variance with the content of a memorandum dated 8th September (Section 2, page 54) from Mr Arnott, UKIP General Secretary, addressed “to whom it may concern”. Its first paragraph plainly refers to Mrs Duffy’s letter of 23rd March. It has not been suggested it refers to any other. Her letter makes no mention of internal disciplinary proceedings being commenced immediately upon Mr Hardy accepting her invitation to re-apply and I have received no evidence that he was so informed. The second paragraph about there being 3 months grace for renewal and that thereafter “Mr Hardy would be treated in the same way as a new membership application” appears again without there having been evidence of any general notice of such a rule or specific notice of it to Mr Hardy. It is to be noted this document is dated only weeks before this hearing. The third paragraph needs citing in full: “It is the policy of the UK Independence Party not to accept membership applications from former BNP members and activists; any new application for membership from Mr Hardy would therefore now be rejected on those grounds”. Mrs Duffy, whose evidence I find to be honest and accurate, tells me that the position is as follows. In November 2009 when she was a member of the NEC, which was until she assumed her present full time post as Party Director, that body made a policy decision that henceforth applications to join UKIP from people who had been members of the BNP should be referred “to the NEC for approval”. This was because there had been “infiltration” from a date in 2008. I infer she meant deliberate infiltration as fifth columnists in order to disrupt the work or besmirch the reputation of UKIP. This would be consistent with her letters to Mr Hardy in March the contents of which she tells me, and I accept, are true.

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage. There has, moreover been not the slightest suggestion made during this hearing that Mr Hardy has turned his political coat once again. I have no choice therefore but to hold Mr Arnott’s memorandum as a deliberate contrivance to exclude Mr Hardy from membership of UKIP and to do so on spurious grounds.

13. Moreover Mrs Duffy tells me, and I accept, that her second letter to Mr Hardy was badly worded and the meaning ordinarily to be attributed to her words does not reflect the true position which was not that Mr Hardy would need to re-apply for membership but that if he would send her back the cheque she wrongly returned to him his membership would continue seamlessly. I take it she now realises her words conveyed a different and adverse impression. Clearly they did in the mind of Mr Hardy and understandably so in the context of what had already passed. It was hardly to be relieved by Mr Arnott’s general communication.

14. Thus on these facts I have no hesitation in finding that in effect both Mr Parkin and UKIP purported to expel Mr Hardy from the membership of branch and party. Was either entitled in law so to do?

15. Although no reference was made to either document during the evidence, during his final submissions Mr Holland, counsel for both Mr Parkin and UKIP, and upon taking instructions, also for the Stockton Branch sought to rely upon UKIP’s written constitution and the Branch’s rules to be found at Section1 pages 66 and 71 respectively in the agreed bundle. No point was taken regarding this by Mr Hardy nor do I think could there be. The following points of fact emerge:

(1) That the party is authorised to raise funds, purchase property and invest monies (clause 3) – it is therefore in law a proprietary club;

(2) that membership is open to people who are not members of any other political party which the NEC has declared incompatible with membership of UKIP (clause 4.1), that if such a member of UKIP subsequently joins such a party his membership is automatically revoked (clause 4.2), that if a UKIP member is a member of such a party such a person will be given 28 days to leave that other party (clause 4.3), that members must maintain their subscriptions (clause 4.4.), that members shall accept the party’s Constitution and rules and do nothing to undermine the party’s reputation or bring it into disrepute, or act in a way intending to cause or causing damage to the party’s interests (clause 4.5);

(3) that by clause 4.6 upon which Mr Holland places particular reliance, where constituency associations are established membership shall be of that association and by affiliation of the association then of the party – there is no issue but that the Stockton Branch equates to a constituency association for this purpose;

(4) that by clause 5.3 the constituency association has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs subject to the constituency rule book approved by the NEC – Mr Holland here submits that the Branch was and is for present purposes “autonomous” so that the party is absolved from the potential liability in this matter of either the branch or its chairman – a submission I have difficulty in accepting; it is not in issue but that the branch was affiliated to the party. Branch membership must then be membership “of the party” as well as of the branch.

(5) that by clause 14 the party shall establish a discipline committee;

(6) that by clause 15 the NEC shall establish the rules governing constituency associations, disciplinary procedures and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management; conduct and administration of the party.

(7) that the branch rules should be read in conjunction with the party constitution which shall take precedence;

(8) that all party members are members of the branch in which they live (rule 2.1) – Mr Hardy lives and has at all material times lived in Stockton;

(9) that Rule 3 is entitled Branch Committees

(10) that “branches are responsible for their own actions “rule 3.1) - a provision further relied upon in support of the autonomy argument;

(11) that the chairman “has principal responsibility of the direction of the branch” (rule 3.8.1)

(12) that rule 7 is entitled “Disputes”;

(13) that by rule 7.1 “instances may arise when differences within a branch threatens its proper functioning. Every effort shall be made to resolve these at the local level, either by branch committee or at a full meeting of the Branch. If this does not succeed the dispute shall be referred to the regional organiser acting on behalf of the party chairman “- it is impossible to think of what transpired within the Stockton branch as other than a dispute but I have heard no evidence from any member of the branch committee, directly or indirectly or of its involvement in this matter – likewise there has been no evidence of a full meeting or for that matter any meeting of the branch attempting to resolve this dispute;

(14) that by rule 7.2 if the dispute remains irreconcilable the party chairman may suspend or dissolve the committee or dissolve the Branch in its entirety.

16. Mr Holland submits that the law of contract is to be applied. With that I agree - next that as the constitution does not provide for expulsion the Branch rules are to be applied and where they are silent as to procedure the rules of natural justice and that of a fair trial are to be applied, and where this last applies the claimant needs to prove that his case was dealt with by a reasonable and proportionate response in all the circumstances of the case. Again I agree that the constitution does not provide for expulsion in the particular circumstances of this case although I find clause 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are not without relevance when I come to consider Mr Arnott’s general memorandum of 10th September this year. In fact such reliance upon Mr Hardy’s former membership of the BNP is in the whole context of this case patently a fig leaf the removal of which discloses an urgent desire to expel Mr Hardy at any price. Clearly Mr Arnott had no regard for this clause had it been a real reason to expel. Save for this consideration which is not without its own significance overall I accept Mr Holland’s argument so far.

17. So he contends Mr Parkin’s banning letter of 11th September 2009 was an action he was authorised by rule 3.1 to take particularly when regard is had to his “principal responsibility for the direction of the branch” under rule 3.8.1. Thus the argument runs Mr Parkin had legitimate power so to regulate branch meetings and in doing so what he did was within a reasonable and proportionate range of actions open to him. It is not for this Court, he submits, to prefer an alternative, particularly with the advantage of hindsight which is within such a range. With this last proposition I entirely concur.

18. Yet applying these principles of law as well as the ordinary meaning to be attached to rules 3.1, 3.8.1 and rule 7 (disputes) it seems to me that Mr Parkin did not have the power to act as he did and wholly failed to invoke rule 7. I do not underestimate the real difficulty of chairing a meeting attended by such a strong opponent as Mr Hardy and he could not in my judgment have been criticised for suspending one or any number of meetings summarily, nor for invoking the rule 7 disputes procedure with regard to all or any of Mr Hardy’s complaints. But instead he appears to me to have acted autocratically, taking sole not principal responsibility even if, which I doubt, the proper meaning of the phrase “direction of the branch” includes doing what he did by his letter of 11th September 2009. That speaks for itself and Mr Parkin has not suggested any alternative construction. It was his decision and his alone to banish Mr Hardy from branch meetings. That act effectively at least suspended Mr Hardy’s membership and although a less stringent test is applicable in law compared with expulsion the principles are the same and in my judgment even suspension in such terms, being for at least as long as Mr Parkin remained branch chairman, was for the same reasons as I have already provided in the context of expulsion, without authority, unreasonable and disproportionate. There is no evidence whatever of his having convened a meeting of either the branch committee or of the whole branch to consider the question of Mr Hardy’s suspension or expulsion. Plainly in March he involved Head Office but by July they seem to have left him high and dry. By September he was on his own. The letter of 11th was his and his alone, without further consultation and without giving Mr Hardy a reasonable opportunity to put forward any case of his own as to why he should not be suspended or expelled. He appears to have been both prosecutor and judge in his own cause.

19. The effect of such an act is compounded by the impression unwittingly given by Mrs Duffy but unambiguously pronounced by Mr Arnott by his general message of 10th September. The only inference sensibly to be drawn is that the senior party officers were backing and reinforcing Mr Parkin’s act and were not having Mr Hardy back.

20. Part of the “factual matrix”, as Mr Holland puts it, in my consideration of this matter is he concedes that unlike other kinds of proprietary clubs such as an allotment association or a tennis club the UKIP party is the only political party available to Mr Hardy, given his particular political views and allegiance, that the Stockton branch is the only branch to which by reason of his place of abode he could belong, and further unlike other activities of a sporting or other recreational type, political activity so long as it is conducted within a democratic framework carries its own special importance. Such considerations are in my view germane not only to the question of compensation but also to that of being treated fairly, reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the branch rules. In each respect I find Mr Parkin, UKIP and the Stockton Branch on whose behalf to the last Mr Parkin has, through Mr Holland, maintained he exercised lawful authority, to have failed so to do. Each party is therefore in breach of his and its contractual duty to Mr Hardy.

21. I therefore hold that their purported expulsion of Mr Hardy to have been null and void and upon his payment of his £10 membership subscription for the current year his membership of the party and the branch continues uninterrupted both to the present day, and until either by lawful means he is expelled or otherwise resigns or retires.

22. Before turning to the matter of compensation and for the sake of completeness I hold that Mr Hardy has not been excluded from any public meeting as he once maintained, neither has he a valid cause of action under the Human Right’s Act as he also contended.

23. With regard to damages Mr Holland submits they should be nominal but I disagree. In effect Mr Hardy has for almost exactly 12 months been deprived of the enjoyment and satisfaction of pursuing his political aims and activity to which he has plainly been deeply committed. He would not however have held any office during that time nor I think been elected to either local or central government notwithstanding his clear ambitions. Neither do I find he is entitled to punitive damages in this case because I judge the unlawfulness of the defendants to stem from ill judgment and inattention to their own rules rather than bad faith. I therefore assess damages in the sum of £750.

His Honour Judge P Fox QC
The Recorder of Middlesbrough

END of JUDGEMENT - Subsequently Appealed by UKIP!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Appeal
VERDICT ADDED:

As Expected The Appeal Courts found against UKIP & Upheld the original Guilty Verdict.

Subject: UKIP APPEAL
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:54:34 +0100

Hello everyone,

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

Nigel Farage turned up, accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers), was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

ALL GOOD WISHES

ALAN HARDY

So let us consider:

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.


How could a qualified barrister suggest his client takes such a case when from the facts in the public domain UKIP was clearly guilty AND surely the fact that they had already been found guilty was more than something of an indication and the fact they had to lodge acceptance of the full costs of both parties even if they had by some miracle won would have made a very hollow reversal which The Courts most clearly indicated was unlikely.
 
Nigel Farage turned up, 

One has to wonder why Nigel Farage would turn up to such a minor case where any kind of victory would save UKIP £750 yet cost them very many £1,000s.

One could be forgiven for wondering if his escort and a weekend away was the motivation!

Could it possibly be that he had employed a salaried member of staff in the role or is she posiibly to be paid for her 'services' via her so called PR Agency and self publicist skills!

accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. 

He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. 

Hardly surprising as he must have had the intelligence to realise UKIP were unlikely to win and even if they did it would cost the membership fees of at least 1,000 members and most probably nearer 2,000 members - hardly a sound investment by a competent leader!

Little wonder that he slunk off to await the verdict beyond public view - I would speculate he was more than adequately filled in later in the day by his assistant.

She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

This could easily be a description of Mick McGough who is omni present licking any boots that may enhance his inadequacy he is ever willing to lie, cheat and dissemble in his own interest or it seems that of his owners.

However it seems more likely to have been Michael Greaves who pretends to some legal experience in the distant past - Though the last record I can find would seem to indicate he was  fired as Councel some 10 or more years ago, for abrogation of his duties and professional responsibilities.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers),

See his URL CLICK HERE 

was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

It does sound unlikely however it may well have meant his own fees.

One can only consider UKIP Leadership in their stupidity as having been ill advised to act so irresponsibly but perhaps the motivation was more influence from Nigel Farage's point of view by the interests of his assistant than by any measure of common sense or responsible adult behaviour!
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

#0597* - A VERDICT TODAY? UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

 Please Be Sure To
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU  

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!    
.

~We may have A VERDICT TODAY? 
I believe yet again UKIP are ONTO A LOSER IN COURT!

They are happy to duck dive lie and defame to use members' money to dishonestly renege on their moral duty to pay their bills with integrity!

I wonder if they would be so free with legal costs if it came out of their pockets but as was recently published by a UKIP MEP £140,000 of legal costs is not considered significant - well it wouldn't be it is from other peoples pockets!

VERDICT ADDED

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

I gather we may well see a verdict to my posting made a week or so ago which I have posted as a repeat below to remind you.

The case came to Court yesterday so we may well have a verdict later today:

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

#0588* - UKIP ONTO A LOSER IN COURT YET AGAIN

.

Win, Draw or Lose The Members Will Again Be The Losers!

Just as UKIP's failure to honour the British Courts and their verdict to pay me the £12.1/2K has done nothing but show them for the dishonest, corrupt incompetents that they are!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

so yet again UKIP will be in Court squandering members' money or has some gullible fool put up the £30 - £40 - £50,000 it will take to yet again learn their lesson!

Time and again UKIP finds itself in Court and rarely it seems do they win - each time costing members money and almost without fail garnering bad publicity.

Many will have heard how UKIP set out to harass me and not only did they lose their case but they have failed to honour their debt resultant which runs to something over £12.1/2K - UKIP lack even the integrity to settle that moral debt and have utterly ignored the British Courts whom they clearly hold in contempt having on various occasions sheltered behind The EUropean Courts and employment in EUrope to seek to duck their responsibilities or hide their fundamental corruption.

This time rather than honour the Court Judgement and pay compensation of £750 reinstating a member who they had accepted in full knowledge of his background and fully approved by Nigel Farage - now we see them gambling with other peoples' money when they KNOW that their costs will far exceed the £750 the Court ordered them to pay.

UKIP whether it wins, draws or loses will be 10s of £1,000s of pounds out of pocket.

It may be worth their while reading Marta Andreasen's call for removal of Farage as leader once again and in detail!

Subject: GENERAL NEWS
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:20 +0100

Hello everyone,

I'm sure most, if not all of you know, that I obtained judgment in the High Court last year against not only the local chairman of the political party of which I am a member, but also the party itself.

The defendant's did not like that and appealed. The appeal is to be heard next week in the Court of Appeal in London. As at the original hearing, I shall be representing myself. And, as a condition of the appeal, the other side will not be able to claim costs against me even if they win - and I'll see to it they don't! They also have a new barrister on the job; it appears the original one left his chambers for pastures new some time after the hearing last September. I can't understand why. Perhaps losing against a layman was more than his professional constitution could bear. But that's his problem. Anyway it'll be yours truly up before the 'big beaks' next week!

I've been on something of a weight loss/fitness programme these past six weeks. I've lost a total of 16 lbs, which I suppose is fairly good going. Over the last few weeks, however, this has plateau'd to a loss of 1 lb per week, which I came to find discouraging, especially after all the effort it takes. It reached the point where, on Saturday night just gone - I weigh myself each Saturday morning - I resolved to give it up as a bad job and go back to being a fat slob again.

The next morning I woke up and, having drunk my first coffee of the day, went off to buy a copy of the last edition of the News of the World. Now I haven't bought a copy of that newspaper for YEARS, but as it was the last opportunity to do so I thought I'd see what it had to offer.

I had a good look through it. The glossy supplement didn't have much of interest to men, apart from a lovely picture of the luminously beautiful Thandie Newton near the front. There was the obligatory crossword near the end and on the opposite page were the star forecasts for the week. Now my star sign is Leo, so I had a look at what the resident clairvoyant had to say. It was this (and you can check on it):

"YOU HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO START, OR RESTART, A FITNESS PLAN AND ENSURE IT WORKS"

Mystic Meg saves the day.

BYE FOR NOW

ALAN

How can such folly backing a sure financial loser be of ANY merit to Farage or UKIP or least of all its members and credibility.

Is this how UKIP sees itself acting were it ever to gain power in any context of consequence not merely Mare for a village in Cambridgeshire!

VERDICT ADDED

As Expected The Appeal Courts found against UKIP & Upheld the Guilty Verdict.

Subject: UKIP APPEAL
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:54:34 +0100

Hello everyone,

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

Nigel Farage turned up, accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers), was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

ALL GOOD WISHES

ALAN HARDY

So let us consider:
Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.


How could a qualified barrister suggest his client takes such a case when from the facts in the public domain UKIP was clearly guilty AND surely the fact that they had already been found guilty was more than something of an indication and the fact they had to lodge acceptance of the full costs of both parties even if they had by some miracle won would have made a very hollow reversal which The Courts most clearly indicated was unlikely.
 
Nigel Farage turned up, 

One has to wonder why Nigel Farage would turn up to such a minor case where any kind of victory would save UKIP £750 yet cost them very many £1,000s.

One could be forgiven for wondering if his escort and a weekend away was the motivation!

Could it possibly be that he had employed a salaried member of staff in the role or is she posiibly to be paid for her 'services' via her so called PR Agency and self publicist skills!

accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. 

He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. 

Hardly surprising as he must have had the intelligence to realise UKIP were unlikely to win and even if they did it would cost the membership fees of at least 1,000 members and most probably nearer 2,000 members - hardly a sound investment by a competent leader!

Little wonder that he slunk off to await the verdict beyond public view - I would speculate he was more than adequately filled in later in the day by his assistant.

She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

This could easily be a description of Mick McGough who is omni present licking any boots that may enhance his inadequacy he is ever willing to lie, cheat and dissemble in his own interest or it seems that of his owners.

However it seems more likely to have been Michael Greaves who pretends to some legal experience in the distant past - Though the last record I can find would seem to indicate he was  fired as Councel some 10 or more years ago, for abrogation of his duties and professional responsibilities.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers),

See his URL CLICK HERE 

was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

It does sound unlikely however it may well have meant his own fees.

One can only consider UKIP Leadership in their stupidity as having been ill advised to act so irresponsibly but perhaps the motivation was more influence from Nigel Farage's point of vie by the interests of his assistant than by any measure of common sense or responsible adult behaviour!
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

~UN-PROFESSIONAL RESPONSES DEMEAN UKIP!
Alan Hardy's comments serve him ill but he is merely a member!
It does seem when Steve Crowther, Steve Allison or any of the other buffoons speaks out they damage the party credibility!!

.
Hi,

one has to wonder whose 'e'Mails are the more damaging to the cause they 'claim' to espouse.

I would submit that Steve Allisons are the more consequential as they are so clearly anti UKIP's best interests.

So let us see what they have to say for themselves:

Firstly I would contend that Alan Hardy's comments were far from wise when he stated:

Subject:	UKIP'S APPEAL
Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:23:22 +0100
From:	alan hardy
To:	Gordon Parkin , Jonathan Arnott , lisa duffy , , Malcolm Goyns , Nigel Farage , Stephen Allison

Dear Sirs,

Courtesy of the Court of Appeal: those within UKIP who feel so inclined CANNOT do as they please, they are bound by the law as are the rest of society. And I may add that UKIP faces further legal action unless the decision not to allow former members of the BNP to stand as candidates for the party, as well as for internal posts, is reversed. Indeed I would like to see written evidence that it even exists.

Take note all of you, especially Mr. Farage.

ALAN HARDY
successful litigant.

Clearly one can empathise with Alan Hardy and just as Nigel Farage must have realised he had exposed UKIP to a hiding for nothing and a bill in the region of £30-50K. That  Farage left hurriedly from The Appeal Courts in The Strand it ill becomes Alan Hardy to crow over so obvious a victory.

Perhaps Farage would have served the party better had he read the original judgement which I have posted in full - see The Right Sidebar & click on Alan Hardy etc.

You will note the judgement draws attention to the fact that The BNP issue was clearly no more than a fig leaf etc.

To seek to uphold the fundamentals of basic law is now branded by some of UKIP's enemies  as being 'anti UKIP'.

Surely no one would deny UKIP the right to enact into their Constitution, Rules or Manifesto the resolution to prevent past members of The BNP from joining UKIP, on some grounds or other but clearly not on the grounds of Racism, anti Judaism, anti homosexuality or opposition to immigrants as UKIP's parners in The EU The EFD are not only pro EU membership but have advocated killing Immigrants from North Africa, are avowedly Racist espousing segregation on public transport etc., anti Homosexual advocating dressing them as rabbits and shooting them and include Holocaust Deniers.

That UKIP welcomes membership of such a group yet seeks to ban ex members of The BNP from joining makes their claimed ruling look a little foolish and more a petty rivalry than a point of principle sadly.

That UKIP has a track record of involvement with The BNP members and before them The National Front is indisputable. It is also worth reminding people of UKIP's own extremist past with the vetting of members by the criminal Gerry Gable via the equally dishonest Mark Croucher and false accusations of membership and association with The BNP.

That Alan Hardy sent his 'e'Mail makes it look as if he is fronting efforts at bringing in BNP members which I doubt he would be so foolish as to espouse but we may well find his 'e'Mail is little more than a venting of his anger at the dishonesty of UKIP as he has, I am given to understand, written confirmation from Nigel Farage that he had informed UKIP of his past membership of The BNP and Farage accepted him as a UKIP member specifically.

I still contend Alan Hardy's 'e'Mail was unwise whether he wishes to drift out of UKIP seeing them as a spent force or continue his active membership. He has also undermined his own credibility should he be serious in his bluster about further legal action.

I would contend Alan Hardy has harmed his own position but done little harm to UKIP save in costs, which are a mere bagatelle relative to the £Millions Farage has personally made from his position in UKIP.

Let us see if you think Steve Allison's comments are any more professional or are they effectively anti UKIP in the manner that they damage the party and its credibility since he speaks as an executive of the party, unlike Alan Hardy who is merely an ex member of The BNP who is in dispute with UKIP over his membership status!

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011
From: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
To: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
Subject:

You may have heard that UKIP lost its appeal in court today against the re-admittance to membership of a Mr.Alan Hardy. This is being spun by certain anti-UKIP Blogs and Websites as a defeat for UKIP and touted an example of how Nigel has been wasting UKIP's money on personal legal vendettas.

I do not think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Nigel Sycophant or someone who believes Nigel can do no wrong, However, in this case I am definitely 100% behind Nigel. Alan Hardy is a former member of the BNP and his case is AT THE MOMENT limited to him. However, I believe that he is being used as a Trojan Horse to force UKIP to accept BNP Members into out ranks and worse. I copy below an e-mail that Hardy sent after the Appeal Court Ruling.

UKIP has to fight this man to the bitter end! We have all worked too hard to destroy the myth that UKIP and the BNP are in any way alike, we must keep out the BNP, this is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

Steve Allison

Let us consider this in some detail:

You may have heard that UKIP lost its appeal in court today against the re-admittance to membership of a Mr.Alan Hardy.

The Court's ruled that Alan Hardy could not be barred from the party on the grounds given in the light of the facts - may I suggest that those who have UKIP's long term wellbeing at heart and genuinely support UKIP take the trouble to read the judgement and it becomes clear why The Courts not only found in favour of Alan Hardy but that the original judgement was upheld by The Appeal Courts in The Strand.

This is being spun by certain anti-UKIP Blogs and Websites as a defeat for UKIP and touted an example of how Nigel has been wasting UKIP's money on personal legal vendettas.

How else could any honest individual see this? I can not speak for anti UKIP blogs as i rarely read them  and then only by accident - sadly the blogs UKIP controls do more than enough damage to UKIP!

Clearly no one is likely to take UKIP seriously as a part of the law making process when it is so clearly in abuse of the law itself and something of a vexatious litigant!

Those who actively seek to support UKIP seek to clean-up the party not provide costly cover for its dishonest executive!

I do not think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Nigel Sycophant or someone who believes Nigel can do no wrong,

Perhaps you could show where Steve Allison has intentionally spoken out to clean-up UKIP and make it electable other than in his personal interest!

However, in this case I am definitely 100% behind Nigel.

Steve Allison pretends to balance yet promptly defends Nigel Farage's ineptitude thereby showing a clear lack of judgement on his own part.

Alan Hardy is a former member of the BNP and his case is AT THE MOMENT limited to him.

Indeed it is and also to the irrefutable fact that UKIP leadership was aware of his past BNP affiliations and actively promoted or at least condoned his membership granting him not only membership of UKIP but as I recall a branch membership status!

However, I believe that he is being used as a Trojan Horse to force UKIP to accept BNP Members into out ranks and worse.

Were that the case do not forget it was Nigel Farage who threw open the gates of Troy and on precedent alone made the entry of The Trojan Horse possible to mix our poets it may be apposite to some to see the engineer hoist on his own petard but I as a supporter of UKIP over many years would like Laocoön caution as so aptly did Virgil with his notable line "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"

I copy below an e-mail that Hardy sent after the Appeal Court Ruling.

As per the mailing I received previously and have posted above.

UKIP has to fight this man to the bitter end!

A wise General selects his ground and also his time for battle where an inept fool charges in and looses as have UKIP - Indeed the end will be bitter. You may yet find that in making much of this issue UKIP may yet throw open the gates and stand bereft of clothing for a battle - however aware of the ineptitude of Alan Hardy's message were it I seeking the well being of UKIP I would act with good grace and grant his membership as the Courts have legally shown in HIS CASE there were no legal grounds used in his removal.

Thereby no precedent will be set and the Trojan Horse can stand at the side of the road to the castle until it is shown to be of no use in smuggling the troops of the claimed enemy into the camp.

We have all worked too hard to destroy the myth that UKIP and the BNP are in any way alike, we must keep out the BNP, this is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

This of course is no more than self serving spin and clearly twaddle when you consider UKIP's fellowship with ex NF members and the use it has made of ex BNP members - that it is clearly twaddle is shown by UKIP's associates in The EU - merely BNP with funny accents!!

Steve Allison

Were it I seeking to serve UKIP I would not be wasting members' money nor undermining UKIP's credibility but as a long term supporter I would be considering the long term and to that end I would call an immediate NEC meeting. I would enact a rule empowering a sub committee of people seen as honest and of probity from within UKIP which would by deffinition preclude members of The NEC and leadership claque and I would empower them to review every member, starting from the top and reserve the right to refund the membership of any member who fulfilled certaimn criteria in terms of past memberships and Criminal Records.

One would have to take care as to how this was worded as it could well preclude individuals like Derek clark, Nigel Farage, Jeffrey Titford, Graham Booth and the like from membership as they have all fallen foul of the law I understand and have had to repay monies they fraudulently obtained or dishonestly used. I understand we are yet to hear the outcome of the case against Stuart Agnew and that against David Bannerman though I gather Mike Nattrass has withdrawn his claim against The Sunday Times and they are to publish an update that subsequent to their earlier article OLAF have decided to take no further action against Mike Nattrass.

In the matter of cleaning up UKIP the party would be well served were it to put before the committee as constituted such individuals as Annabelle Fuller, Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, Andrew Smith, Hugh Williams and others who through their fantasies and dishonesty have corrupted UKIP and demeaned its reputation as a credible political force.

I wonder what the anti UKIP bloggers that Steve Allison seems to follow will make of dealing with the truth and on what leg they would seek to stand if UKIP were cleaned-up and presented a credible professional stance with vision, strategy, tactics a plan - training and a structure that would make them presentable to the informed electorate and encourage activists to rejoin with probity and transparency.

Until that time UKIP defames itself daily on its own controlled blogs such that one wonders what an anti UKIP blog would find to write about - though Steve Alison has made a pretty fair fist of showing us by example.

As a supporter I am all too well aware that unless UKIP makes these moves towards professionalising they are increasingly a part of the problem when it comes to leaving The EU and have no place in the solution.

For more details regarding this particular case do CLICK HERE
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 .

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED 05-AUG-2011

 

From:	alan hardy [huntsman2000@hotmail.com]	Sent:	Fri 8/5/2011 3:22 PM
To:	Nigel Farage
Cc:	Stephen Allison; Steve Crowther; Gordon Parkin; lisa duffy; Colin Rigg
Subject:	BAN ON FORMER MEMBERS OF BNP STANDING AS CANDIDATES/BRQACH OFFICIALS
Attachments:	PRE-HEARING LETTER TO GORDON PARKIN.doc‎(26KB)‎

Dear Mr Farage,
 
Further to an earlier e-mail requesting the information, could you please let me have details of the decision supposedly made by the NEC.
It was/is a favourite subject of Gordon Parkin and was mentioned on the stand by Lisa Duffy during the original hearing in September last year at the High Court. I should like to know the following:
 
1. The date the NEC passed the decision.
 
2. Were minutes of the meeting kept and, if so, am I to be allowed sight of a copy? (And if not, why not
 
3. If minutes were not kept who was present at the relevant meeting.
 
I should like the information within seven days or a reason why it is denied to me. In the meantime perhaps you would care to read a letter I sent to Mr. Parkin two months before the above-mentioned hearing. Perhaps having read it you might care to enquire of him why he would not take up my offer, especially since, as he did not, the Party's funds are down by (I estimate) £30,000.
 
I look forward to hearing from you.
 
ALAN HARDY
 
member no. 43927

ATTACHMENT:

Flat 6

2 Cranbourne Terrace

Stockton on Tees

TS18 3PX

Mobile: 07930 217186

mailto: huntsman2000@hotmail.com

22 July 2010

Mr Gordon H Parkin

21 Ragpath Lane

Roseworth

STOCKTON ON TEES

TS19 9BA

Dear Mr. Parkin,

CLAIM NO. 9MB03865: ALAN HARDY -V- PARKIN

I acknowledge safe receipt of a copy of your signed witness statement.

Quite frankly (and taking account of all previous correspondence) if that is the best you and your lawyer can come up with by way of a defence, then I cannot foresee a happy ending for you in this matter. I respectfully suggest therefore that you take further counsel with him to – seriously – discuss my offer of resolution.

In the above connection, however distasteful the prospect of resigning from the UKIP may seem to you now it might, with hindsight, prove the lesser of two evils. That is, if you insist on facing me in court on 23^rd September.

And that day is drawing ever nearer…

Yours sincerely

Alan Hardy

What hearing on 23-Sep-2011 is alluded to is unknown to me at this stage - as is the reason for this letter - which surely would have been served better as a Freedom of Information Request. 

I was under the impression that Alan Harvey had already won his case - as shown in earlier material published above!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

 

 

 

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To 
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU  

  Related articles

• #0588* - Ukip Onto a Loser in Court Yet Again (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0594* - UKIP WATCH Steve ALLISON Pull The Wings Off of its NEC (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0569* - UKIP Seems NOT to Understand Professionalism! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• 06-Jun-2011 - UKIP Apology Makes EFD Membership Repugnant for Honourable Supporters of UKIP (efd-eu.blogspot.com)
• #0583* - Is UKIP Leadership or The BBC The Most 'Homophobic'? (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0532* - UKIP Could Have Achieved So VERY Much (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0579* - Nigel Farage Presents Well IF ONLY UKIP had leadership & structure! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• INDEX of CONTENT - UKIP-vs-EUkip The First Year (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

Posted by Greg_L-W. at 03:29 0 comments