CAC directed a ballot to determine whether or not a sufficient proportion of the bargaining group supported collective negotiation by Ps (two unions). There were 4 votes too few to find that there was such support, but it directed a rerun on the grounds that 5 members who would have voted in favour were not given a reasonable opportunity to vote. The company, D, sought JR of the decision to rerun the ballot, on the grounds that CAC was given no such power to do so. CA rejected the challenge, holding that although CAC had no power to interpret the ballot under para 29, it did have a supervisory role in assessing the validity of the ballot and to order a rerun where the statutory standards had not been met.
Buxton LJ: He supports dictum from Kwikfit that “the Central Arbitration Committee was intended by Parliament to be a decision making body in a specialist area that is not suitable for the intervention of the courts”, though obviously CAC still had to act within the scope of powers conferred on it.