Misplaced Pages

DC Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

DC Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin
CourtCourt of Appeal
Keywords
Strike, economic tort

DC Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin Ch 646 is a UK labour law case, concerning the right to strike.

Facts

NATSOPA wished to pressure on DC Thomson & Co Ltd to accept the union for collective bargaining. It got TGWU drivers to disrupt its supply of paper.

Judgment

Jenkins LJ, accepted the possibility of liability in principle of a union to an employer if a strike meant that a commercial contract would be cut off. However on the facts, there was not enough for liability.

First … there may … be an actionable interference with contractual rights where other means of interference than persuasion or procurement or inducement, in the sense of influence of one kind or another brought to bear on the mind of the contract breaker to cause him to break his contract, are used by the interferer; but, secondly, that (apart from conspiracy to injure, which, as I have said, is not in question so far as this motion is concerned) acts of a third party lawful in themselves do not constitute an actionable interference with contractual rights merely because they bring about a breach of contract, even if they were done with the object and intention of bringing about such breach.

first, that the person charged with actionable interference knew of the existence of the contract and intended to procure its breach; secondly, that the person so charged did definitely and unequivocally persuade, induce or procure the employees concerned to break their contracts of employment with the intent I have mentioned; thirdly, that the employees so persuaded, induced or procured did in fact break their contracts of employment; and, fourthly, that breach of the contract forming the alleged subject of interference ensued as a necessary consequence of the breaches by the employees concerned of their contracts of employment.

See also

Collective action sources
TULRCA 1992 s 219
Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216
Taff Vale Railway Co v ASRS AC 426
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch AC 435
JT Stratford & Son v Lindley AC 269
Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins 2 Ch 106
Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton 2 AC 570
TULRCA 1992 s 244
BBC v Hearn ICR 686
UCL Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison ICR 204
Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF 1 AC 366
TULRCA 1992 ss 226-234
P v NASUWT 2 AC 663
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (No 2) EWCA Civ 669
Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union
TULRCA 1992 ss 20-22, 220-221 and 241
The Rosella (2008) C-438/05
Laval Un Partneri Ltd v Svenska BAF (2008) C-319/05
Demir and Baykara v Turkey ECHR 1345
RMT v UK
see UK labour and unions

Notes

References

Category: