In BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Unite the Union, the High Court dismissed an application by BAE Systems (BAE) for an interim injunction to prevent strike action by members of the trade union, Unite, over a pay dispute. In this insight, we look at the reasons for that decision and key takeaways.

Background

Unite members working in professional staff and quality control roles at BAE’s Warton and Samlesbury plants in Lancashire rejected a 3.6% pay offer for 2025.

Unite balloted 502 members for both a strike and action short of a strike. The ballot opened on 1 October 2025 and closed on 22 October 2025, with an overwhelming vote in favour.

In the meantime, on or around 10 October 2025, BAE alleged that Unite had instructed its members employed as quality professionals to stop training BAE’s quality executives, and that instruction resulted in a refusal to comply with BAE’s request to train one executive on 13 October. This was denied by Unite.

On 22 October 2025, Unite gave BAE notice that industrial action would commence on 5 November 2025. That same day, BAE applied for an interim injunction to stop the strikes, arguing that Unite had made an unlawful prior call to take part in industrial action to which the ballot related, contrary to s.233(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The unlawful prior call relied on by BAE was the alleged instruction issued by Unite on or around 10 October 2025. 

BAE brought civil proceedings in the High Court, contending that theunlawful prior call meant that:

1. Unite would not be protected from liability for the tort of inducing a breach of contract in respect of: (a) the forthcoming industrial action if it went ahead as planned and (b) the action that had already taken place;
2. Unite was liable for the tort of inducing a breach of contract regarding the action that had already taken place; and,
3. an interim injunction should be granted to prevent the planned strike action.

The High Court’s decision

On 5 November 2025, Mr Justice Soole dismissed BAE's application for an interim injunction, on the basis that Unite was likely to succeed in establishing that their statutory immunity remained intact. It therefore followed that BAE’s claims against them were unlikely to succeed. The court found that:

• Unite were well aware of the significance of the prior call rule and so would be unlikely to be in breach of it, either deliberately or inadvertently.
• It was reasonable for Unite’s officials to doubt whether the quality professionals were contractually obliged to train executives if requested or instructed to do so, given that the quality professionals considered this request to be ‘out of the ordinary’ and had sought advice from Unite on whether they should comply.
• The contemporaneous evidence supported Unite’s account that union officials did not instruct the quality professionals to refuse to train managers outright, as alleged by BAE; instead, Unite advised its members to ask management for written clarification of their contractual obligations.
• Unite did not show wilful blindness or reckless indifference to the contractual obligations of the quality professionals in respect of the training of executives.
• The quality professionals did not, in fact, refuse to train managers on the specific date alleged (the court noted that BAE’s evidence on that issue was ‘strikingly frail’). Without such a refusal, the tort of inducing a breach of contract could not be established.
• A reasonable union member would not interpret the request to train managers as being ‘related to’ the specific type of industrial action (banning ‘buddying up training/coaching to inductees or others e.g. new starters’) described on the ballot paper.

Events since the decision

Unite members at BAE’s Warton and Samlesbury plants commenced strike action as planned on 5 November 2025.

The legal action appears to have escalated the pay dispute, with the parties seemingly taking more entrenched positions. There are reports that BAE has refused to negotiate further and instead imposed the 3.6% pay increase that the professional and quality control staff had originally rejected (which was lower than the 4.5% pay increase offered to their shop floor colleagues). In response, those in safety critical roles extended their period of strike action to 24 December 2025 and their colleagues in other roles are taking action short of strike.

Key takeaways

The decision in this case does not create any new legal principles but reminds employers of the stringent tests that will be applied when seeking to challenge the lawfulness of industrial action.

Employers need to present a very strong evidential case that a union has not complied with the statutory requirements for lawful action in order to persuade a court to grant any application for an interim injunction to stop planned industrial action.

As can be seen from this case, an unsuccessful challenge by an employer can be divisive; encouraging more employees to take part in industrial action. It can also impact negatively on employer/employee and trade union relations.

Consequently, employers should give very careful consideration to the wider impact when determining whether to seek an injunction to prevent industrial action - and take specialist legal advice before doing so.

How Capsticks can help

Unfortunately, it is not always possible to avoid industrial action. Capsticks has a wealth of experience of supporting employers before, during and after a dispute (including delivering training, supporting decision makers and HR involved in resolution of the dispute, management of staff and services and contingency planning, as well as pursuing any legal claims that may arise).

Capsticks also continues to support employers and national organisations during the ongoing industrial action in the health sector.

For further information on how we might assist your organisation, please contact Nicola Green, Paul McFarlane or Andrew Rowland.