Barrister refused permission to appeal in ongoing dispute with Liberal Democrats

A barrister has been refused permission to appeal against the refusal of two appeals connected to a dispute within the Liberal Democrats over her expulsion from the party.

Barrister Josephine Hayes was expelled from the Liberal Democrats in 2022 following a complaint. She applied for an injunction to prevent or reverse her expulsion, which was dismissed. Hayes then filed a claim over breach of the multilateral contract that connects party members. The party argues Hayes’ expulsion was ‘in accordance with the contract and the constitution’.

Hayes’ two applications to appeal are related to two decisions by Master Armstrong last year. The master struck out paragraphs of the particulars of claim and ‘effectively focused the scope’ of Hayes’ claims on the breach of contract dispute. In July, he refused to set aside his previous decision and refused Hayes’ application to amend the particulars of claim to expand the relief sought. Hayes’ appeal against both decisions was refused.

Ruling on a renewed application in Josephine Hayes v Dr Mark Pack & Ors, Mr Justice Dexter Dias said Hayes’ desire to expose the structural problems of the Lib Dems’ complaints system revealed ‘with great clarity the fallacy at the heart of these renewal applications’.

He added: ‘The fallacy flows from a fundamental misunderstanding of the status of the claim. This is a private law claim. It is brought in the King’s Bench List. It is not a judicial review in the Administrative Court. This is not a public law challenge akin to impugning state or public authority decision-making or maladministration. The Liberal Democrats form an unincorporated association; that association has no separate corporate identity.’

The judgment said the defendants conceded there is a ‘clear and clearly arguable claim that requires determination at trial’. That claim ‘involves the tight question of whether in conducting the disciplinary process against the applicant and reaching the decision that she should be excluded from the Party there was a breach of contract’.

Refusing permission in relation to the first appeal, the judge found all seven grounds had no real prospect of success and there ‘is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard’. Referring to the second appeal, the judge found all seven grounds had no real propect of success.

A trial in relation to Hayes’ breach of contract claim is listed for later this month.

This article is now closed for comment.