A judge has laid out her reasons for granting an interim injunction to halt proposed changes to the Progressive Labour Party’s membership and its process for selecting delegates for the upcoming leadership contest.

The party’s central committee sought to introduce restrictions on automatic PLP membership, as well as for how long members would have to wait before seeking to serve as delegates, but Curtis Dickinson, who is running against Jason Hayward to lead the party, argued the changes went against the PLP constitution and bylaws.

During a September 4 ex parte hearing, Acting Chief Justice Shade Subair Williams granted injunctive relief prohibiting the implementation and enforcement of the amendments.

In a written decision laying out her reasons, Mrs Justice Subair Williams said there was a serious issue to be tried and that no money order could remedy the potential damages to the plaintiffs if relief was not granted.

She wrote: “If a defendant can be adequately compensated by an award in damages, then the court will likely preserve the status quo by granting interim injunctive relief, so long as the question to be tried in the substantive action is a serious one.

“However, if one party and, or others will suffer irremediable harm if an interlocutory injunction is refused or imposed by the court, then the court will necessarily take a closer look at the merits of the underlying action, as best it can in the circumstances of the application being made urgently.

“The purpose of that exercise is not to shortcut the trial but to assist the court in making an order which is balanced and likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to the one party or the other.”

She said the effect of the temporary injunction was to leave the 2026 membership process and the delegates’ powers undisturbed.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams added that if the injunction had not been granted, the altered certified membership lists would have been put into circulation by September 6 with determinations about delegates made on September 14.

The dispute arose after David Burt, the party leader and Premier, put forward a proposal to stop people who publicly campaigned against the PLP in the past two general elections from automatically being accepted as members in the party.

It is understood his addendum was agreed by the central committee on August 24, as well as a separate proposal requiring people to have been party members for at least a year to be eligible to serve as delegates in the party leadership election.

Mr Dickinson, along with four individuals who recently joined the PLP or renewed their membership, launched a legal action against the party’s chairwoman and its secretary-general.

In an affidavit, Mr Dickinson expressed concern that the amendments would result in the removal or suspension of new members, leaving them unable to vote on delegates at branch meetings, altering the composition of the body that elects the party leader.

Under the constitution, each branch has one delegate for its first 20 financial members and one additional delegate for each additional 20 financial members, with branches required to forward a certified list of members 21 days before the party’s Annual Delegates Conference.

Mr Dickinson added that the timing of the amendments left those impacted unable to cure their position before the coming party election.

The annual delegates conference, at which the new leader would be elected, was planned for October 28 to 30 but the PLP on Monday postponed the event as the court process continues.

Mr Dickinson, a former finance minister, and Mr Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, are contending for the party’s top job.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams wrote in reasons dated September 10 that the first amendment would introduce a procedure to allow an objection to membership on the grounds that the applicant was a candidate or supporter of parties that ran against the PLP in the 2020 and 2025 general elections.

She said: “The effect of any implementation of the first addendum would have been to create a new process whereby the party executive would review the objections and make recommendations, and the central committee would determine the merits of the objections by approving or denying the new membership application.

“In my judgment, a serious issue arises as to whether the PLP constitution and, or the bylaws can be properly construed to enable this procedure and whether the central committee is so empowered under the PLP constitution and, or the bylaws.”

She added that under the party’s constitution, amendments required a two-thirds majority vote by delegates at an annual general conference or special delegates conference upon prescribed notice.

The judge added: “I was thus bound to find that the plaintiff’s case that the central committee would be acting ultra vires [beyond its powers] in passing a resolution to amend the constitution or the bylaws is one which qualifies as a serious issue for trial.”

Mrs Justice Subair Williams said that the second addendum, which restricts PLP members from standing as delegates until they have been in the party for a year, was a material departure from the existing provisions, which was sufficient to establish there was a serious issue to be tried.

She also noted that the first addendum would govern applications that had already been processed or confirmed, which raised another potentially serious issue for trial.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams accepted submissions that this was not a case where damages could serve as an adequate remedy for possible losses if a stay was not granted.

The matter is set to be heard at trial early next month.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers