AB_v_CD_(UK)

<i>AB v CD</i> (UK)

AB v CD (UK)

Trade union case ruling of the United Kingdom Court of Appeal

This article is about the UK labour law case. For the UK case about parental consent to medical treatment, see Bell v Tavistock ยง AB v CD and others. For the Australian criminal law case, see AB v CD (Australia).

AB v CD [2001] IRLR 808 is a UK labour law case, concerning the governance of trade unions in the United Kingdom.

Quick Facts AB v CD, Court ...

Facts

The president of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) wanted a declaration that the election for the Council of Executives breached union rules. A single transferable vote would be used according to rule 13 but there was no provision for a tie scenario. Mr Tilley and Mr Grundy tied at the second round, and Mr Tilley was appointed because he had more first round votes, as the Electoral Reform Society rules would suggest. Many people disagreed, and Mr Grundy argued that the Electoral Reform Society rules should not be implied.

Judgment

Sir Andrew Morritt VC held that it was appropriate to imply the Electoral Reform Society rules and recommendations, "by reason of necessity" arising from the RMT rules being incomplete.[1]

See also

References

  1. [1]
    Old Square Chambers, RMT sub nom AB v CD, published 25 April 2001, accessed 7 February 2023
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article AB_v_CD_(UK), and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.