Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T22:46:02.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers and Others

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Dennis Ong
Dennis Ong*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Note
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 113 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310 (Court of Appeal) Lord Denning M.R., Lawton and Ormrod L.JJ.; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300 (House of Lords) Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.

2 The Attorney-General's consent is required in a relator action because in such an action it is the Attorney-General who sues, albeit on the relation of an individual (the relator).

3 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 314.

4 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310. The appeal was heard on 15 January and, following an adjournment, on 18, 19, 20 and 21 January. Judgment was delivered on 27 January.

5 Id. 319, 320, 321.

6 Id. 316.

7 Id. 321. It appears to be implicit that an interim injunction-similar to that granted against the U.P.W.-was also granted against the P.O.E.U.

8 Id. 322.

9 Id. 322, 328, 333.

10 It is noteworthy that of all the nine judges who heard this case at its various stages, only Lord Denning assented to the plaintiff's submission that a private citizen could have the right to sue on behalf of the general public to prevent a threatened public wrong. At no stage in the litigation did the plaintiff even faintly suggest that he was suing to protect a private right or to prevent a personal injury.

11 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 328.

12 Id. 328.

13 Ibid.

14 Id. 328. For a somewhat less sedate version of the same view, see 332-333.

15 Attorney-General ex. rel. McWhirter v. Independent Broadcasting Authority [1973] Q.B. 629, 649.

16 Presumptively, the U.P.W.

17 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 332. However, as Lord Denning was dissenting on this issue no declaration to this effect was made by the court. Although the point is by no means clear, it may be surmised that the declaration envisaged by Lord Denning would have been made not only against the Attorney-General, but also against the other two defendants.

18 Id. 332; 340; 346. Although the members of the Court of Appeal gave the impression that only one interim injunction had been granted (against the U.P.W.), it is clear from a reading of the speeches in the House of Lords that an interim injunction had also been granted against the P.O.E.U. [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300,306,318,335,353.

19 Id. 337-338, 346.

20 Id. 335, 337, 340.

21 Id. 340, 344-345.

22 Id. 329, 330, 331.

23 Id. 339, 345.

24 [1942] A.C. 332.

25 Id. 344.

26 Id. 345.

27 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310,339 (italics added); Ormrod L.J. concurred (345).

28 In the House of Lords, Lord Edmund-Davies-[1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 343- gave the distinct impression that the Court of Appeal had actually granted the plaintiff declaratory relief. With respect, such relief had not been given by the Court of Appeal. What the Court of Appeal did was no more than to give leave to the plaintiff to amend (for the second, and final, time) his statement of claim, so that his claim became nothing but an application for declaratory relief. [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 347.

29 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 347.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid. This portion of the declaratory judgment sought against the Attorney-General is problematical. Of their nature, interim injunctions can only operate before the final determination of the main action. What, then, is the explanation for granting a declaration after the main action to the effect that interim injunctions could have been granted before the date of such a declaration?

32 In the House of Lords, Lord Edmund Davies-[1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 335- stated that, at the conclusion of the interlocutory proceedings before the Court of Appeal, the latter had actually granted the plaintiff interim injunctions against the two unions. With respect, no injunction of any kind was granted against either union at this stage. Indeed, the interim injunctions granted against the unions on 15 January 1977 had expired on the resumption of the hearing on 18 January 1977. These interim injunctions were not renewed when the Court of Appeal gave (interlocutory) judgment on 27 January 1977; [1977) W.L.R. 310, 346.

33 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 322.

34 Id. 347.

35 No less than?

36 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300.

37 Id. 309.

38 Id. 310 per Lord Wilberforce.

39 Id. 311 per Lord Wilberforce; 320 per Viscount Dilhorne; 336-337 per Lord Edmund-Davies; 348 per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.

40 [1902] A.C. 165.

41 Id. 168-169. A full quotation of Lord Halsbury's dictum can be found in the speech of Viscount Dilhorne; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 320.

42 Id. 169.

43 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 316 per Lord Wilberforce; 327 per Viscount Dilhorne; 333per Lord Diplock; 345 per Lord Edmund-Davies; 353 per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.

44 Id. 351-352.

45 I.e. final injunctions.

46 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 316 per Lord Wilberforce; 327 per Viscount Dilhorne;332 per Lord Diplock; 346 per Lord Edmund-Davies; 353 per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.

47 Id. 315 per Lord Wilberforce; 346 per Lord Edmund-Davies.

48 Id. 315.

49 Id. 346.

50 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 330.

51 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 309-310.

52 Id. 322.

53 Id. 349.

54 Id. 313.

55 Id. 323. See also Lord Diplock's comment 331-332.

56 [1977] 2 W.L.R. 310, 342, 344.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 I.e. the Attorney-General.

60 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 311. See also 325, per Viscount Dilhorne, and 339, per Lord Edmund-Davies.

61 Id. 350.

62 Id 314 per Lord Wilberforce; 324, 326, per Viscount Dilhorne; 340, per Lord Edmund-Davies; 350, per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton.

63 Id. 326.

64 Ibid.

65 Id. 340.

66 Id. 314.

67 Id. 350.

68 I.e. for disregarding the injunction issued by the courts of civil jurisdiction.

69 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300, 313-314; 322, per Viscount Dilhorne; 329-330, per Lord Diplock. But Lord Edmund-Davies was not similarly troubled, 340.