A runaway train?
A disagreement between two active members of the 6024 Preservation Society Limited, a charity established in 1963 to purchase, restore and operate the ex-Great Western Railway steam locomotive, King Edward I, has resulted in a libel action.
The locomotive restoration was completed in 1989. Stephen Underhill, the claimant, was the chairman and engineering manager of the Society. He is a boilersmith and fitter by profession, an employee of the Tyseley Locomotive Works, which had also provided services to the Society. Underhill had worked on the locomotive for many hours, both as a paid employee of Tyseley, and an unpaid volunteer. Arrangements were in place to prevent a conflict of interest.
Timothy Watson is a railway enthusiast. Retired, he had been appointed the organisation’s publicity officer in 1996 and subsequently become editor of the Society’s thrice-yearly publication, King’s Messenger. This was sent to the Society’s members, while the remainders in a 500-issue print-run were distributed to non-members.
Both had been involved in the Society for 25-30 years and were members of its management board. Richard Corser, a defendant alongside Watson, is a chartered accountant and member of 16 years. Also a member of the board, he had taken over responsibility for the Society’s financial affairs in 2001.
The precise nature of Underhill’s complaint is not discussed in depth in this case. Rather, Justice Tugendhat was ruling on a preliminary issue as to qualified privilege.
Following deterioration in relations between Underhill and Watson, Underhill resigned from the Society in October 2007.The autumn 2007 edition of King’s Messenger, published in December 2007, contained an editorial about Underhill’s departure that, he contends, ‘accused him of dishonest misappropriation of the Society’s funds.’
Stories about Underhill’s departure had already appeared in the specialist press, such as the November 2008 issue of Steam Railway. ‘It contains the Society’s case that he had broken the rule that trustees should receive no remuneration,’ writes Justice Tugendhat. The King’s Messenger editorial had asked, ‘…how can a trustee… effectively damage the loco and members by disgracing the Society and knowingly deprive it of funds?’
While Watson claimed justification and qualified privilege, Underhill argued that the distribution of the publication to non-members – as well as its publication online – ruled out qualified privilege and claimed malice on Watson’s part.
Justice Tugendhat concluded that Corser was not responsible in law as a publisher. However, the claims in the King’s Messenger editorial were made to about 13 non-members, which could not be covered by qualified privilege.
Perhaps a little ominously for some charities, Justice Tugendhat also rejected the defence argument based on abuse of process, finding that ‘the fact that a claimant may not be able to pay the costs of a case if he loses is not of itself a reason why he should be denied accessto justice.’
While the case is set to go ahead as a result of Justice Tugendhat’s findings, Watson could be left out of pocket if Underhill loses and is unable to pay Watson’s costs.
Stephen Underhill v (1) Richard Corser and (2) Timothy Watson [2010] EWC 1195 (QB)
Comments
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.