Madden v Irish Countrywomen's Association

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh
• Judgment Date: 04 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 551
• Docket Number: Record No. 2018/4915 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 04 October 2018

Patricia Madden, Shirley Power, Alice Rowley, Catherine Spillane, Concepta Lillis,

and

Joanne Dunphy Allen

Plaintiffs

v

Irish Countrywomen's Association, The Countrywomen's Trust

Defendants

[2018] IEHC 551

Record No. 2018/4915 P

THE HIGH COURT

Election – Procedural irregularities – Declaratory relief – Plaintiffs seeking declaratory reliefs – Whether declaratory reliefs should be granted in respect of alleged procedural irregularities

Facts: A 2018 national election within the first defendant, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association (the ICA), concerned the selection of candidates to sit on the National Executive Board (the NEB). The first ballot was cancelled and a second round of ballot papers issued in March, 2018. The ballot was to be closed by 27 April, 2018 and the votes then counted and announced. However, this did not take place because of a series of events in April and May, which culminated in the passing, or purported passing, of a motion by a large majority of the membership of the ICA, at an AGM on 26 May, 2018, to defer the elections for six months and keep a ‘caretaker’ NEB in place pending fresh elections. The first plaintiff, Ms Madden, took the view that a number of serious procedural irregularities had taken place, including (but not limited to) irregularities relating to two purported motions passed, the one at the AGM held on the 26 May 2018 and one at an EGM held on the 14 April 2018. Ms Madden also took the view that the second round of ballot papers should have been counted. The High Court was asked to decide whether declaratory reliefs should be granted in respect of the alleged irregularities and/or whether injunctive relief should be granted in respect of the second ballot i.e. essentially an order that the second ballot should be counted and that persons thereby elected should take their places on the NEB.

Held by Ní Raifeartaigh J that the motions passed at the EGM on the 14 April 2018 and the AGM on the 26 May 2018 were in breach of the Constitution of the ICA, not merely because of some technical procedural irregularities but also because, substantively, the motions provided for a course of action and a set of arrangements which were not authorised/envisaged by the Constitution. Ní Raifeartaigh J held that by reason of the events which took place in April, the second round ballot papers were unlikely to contain a complete expression of the democratic will of the ICA because, as a matter of fact, some Guilds probably did not vote in that ballot because they believed that the election had been cancelled. Ní Raifeartaigh J held that if she were to grant declarations that the motions were invalid without granting the injunction to count the second ballot, this would not resolve the situation at a practical level. She held that the court must make an order authorising a course of action even if it was not strictly in accordance with the Constitution, by reason of the exceptional circumstances that had arisen and having regard to the fact that the ICA is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee with a trust fund, and must somehow both continue to function on a day-to-day basis and yet resolve the impasse.

Ní Raifeartaigh J held that: (a) she would grant some of the declarations sought by Ms Madden concerning breaches of the ICA Constitution, specifically numbers (2), (10) and (11) in the notice of motion dated 6 June 2018 which have been incorporated into the amended plenary summons, as well as amended number (7), also incorporated into the plenary summons, which is “A Declaration that insofar as positions on the National Executive Board have been filled since 26 May, 2018 they are invalid”; (b) she would order that a fresh ballot be held and counted within two months i.e. by the end of September 2018; and (c) she would order that the persons serving on the NEB stay in place until the elections had been carried out, in order to manage the ordinary and day-to-day business of the ICA.

Reliefs granted.

(Approved) Judgment of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh of the 4th October, 2018

Nature of the Case

1 This is a case which came before the Court in connection with certain national elections within the Irish Countrywomen's Association (hereinafter ‘the ICA’) in 2018. The election in question concerned the selection of candidates to sit on the National Executive Board (hereinafter ‘the NEB’ or ‘the Board’). In accordance with the Constitution of the ICA, ballot papers are issued by post and voting also takes place by post. For reasons which will be discussed below, the first ballot was cancelled and a second round of ballot papers issued in March, 2018. The ballot was to be closed by 27 April, 2018 and the votes then counted and announced. However, this did not take place because of a series of events in April and May, which culminated in the passing, or purported passing, of a motion by a large majority of the membership of the ICA, at an AGM on 26 May, 2018, to defer the elections for six months and keep a “caretaker” NEB in place pending fresh elections. The motion was in fact more complicated than I have just described, but I think that this captures the essence of it. Ms. Patricia Madden, the first plaintiff, who represented herself in Court throughout the proceedings, took the view that a number of serious procedural irregularities had taken place, including (but not limited to) irregularities relating to two purported motions passed, the one at the AGM held on the 26 May 2018 already referred to, and one at an EGM held on the 14 April 2018. Ms. Madden also took the view that the second round of ballot papers should have been counted and should now be counted. Essentially, what this Court has been asked to decide is whether declaratory reliefs should be granted in respect of the alleged irregularities; and/or whether injunctive relief should be granted in respect of the second ballot i.e. essentially an order that the second ballot should be counted and that persons thereby elected should take their places on the NEB.

2 It is clear from the affidavits sworn in the proceedings that there is currently, at least in some quarters in the ICA, an inflamed atmosphere and that emotions concerning these elections have been running high and that bitter personal animosities have been generated. I sought to encourage the parties to seek to reach agreement by way of settlement, and also referred the matter to mediation under s. 16 of the Mediation Act, 2017, but attempts at informal resolution did not succeed and it now falls to me to decide the question of whether the sought-for equitable reliefs should be granted or not, having regard to all of the circumstances.

The history of the proceedings and the evolution of the parties and claims

3 The parties and the claims made have been the subject of evolution during the course of the proceedings. To summarise the position as of the close of the case:

(a) There are six plaintiffs, all members of the ICA;

(b) There are two defendants namely the ICA and the Countrywomen's Trust;

(c) The plenary summons has been amended to include the final (non-interlocutory) reliefs sought in the second ex parte docket/notice of motion, with one variation.

(d) A total of 24 affidavits have been sworn. Ms. Madden herself swore 7 affidavits. Ms. Marie O'Toole, the outgoing National President, swore 3 affidavits. Apart from an affidavit of service sworn by a solicitor, the remaining affidavits were sworn by members of the ICA, some of whom had been candidates in the elections, and one of whom worked in the Central Office dealing with the administrative arrangements concerning the posting of ballot papers.

4 A more detailed history of the proceedings follows. All dates referred to are within 2018.

5 Initially, the plaintiff Ms. Madden filed an ex parte docket on the 28th May seeking an order ‘restraining the ICA from destroying or interfering in any way with any of the Ballot Papers returned in the Elections for National President, National Secretary, National Treasurer and Regional Presidents in the 2018 national elections of closing date 27th April, 2018’. This was grounded on an affidavit sworn by Ms. Madden on the same date. On the 30 May, the Court (Stewart J.) granted an order giving the plaintiff liberty to issue and serve short Notice of Motion for an interlocutory injunction returnable on 1 June 2018. A plenary summons was issued on the 30 May, 2018 seeking the same order as was set out in the ex parte docket i.e. non-destruction of the ballot papers. At this stage of the proceedings, the sole plaintiff was Ms. Madden and the sole defendant was the ICA. A Notice of Motion seeking the same relief as set out in the ex parte docket dated the 30 May issued, returnable for the 1st June, 2018. On 1st June, 2018, the Court (Stewart J.) noted that an undertaking was given to the Court on behalf of the ICA that the ballot papers would not be destroyed pending further order and adjourned the motion to the 15 June, requiring the defendant to file a replying affidavit and giving the plaintiff liberty to issue and serve a further notice of motion seeking to join parties.

6 A second ex parte docket was issued on the 6th June, seeking a much longer set of reliefs, grounded on a detailed affidavit of Ms. Madden dated the 6th June, 2018. In broad terms, the reliefs sought were concerned with injunctive relief to secure the counting of the second set of ballot papers and injunctive relief, inter alia, to prevent a convening of NEB and from filling any vacancies on the Board or taking any decisions arising from the motion passed at the AGM, together with declarations that a number of steps that had been taken were contrary to the ICA Constitution. Obviously, the reliefs sought therein were much broader than the reliefs sought in the Plenary Summons. The affidavit dated 6th June dealt with the...