JT Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Decided | 28 July 1964 (1964-07-28) |
Citations |
|
Case history | |
Prior actions |
|
Appealed from | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Related actions |
|
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord Reid, Viscount Radcliffe, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan |
Keywords | |
Right to strike, common law, fundamental right |
JT Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley AC 269 is a UK labour law case that concerns economic tort and strike action.
Facts
The union embargoed JT Stratford & Son, the parent company of a subsidiary that the union was in dispute with. They refused to handle the barges of JT Stratford.
Judgment
The House of Lords held
Lord Reid said the following.
The respondents' action made it practically impossible for the appellants to do any new business with the barge hirers.
It was not disputed that such interference is tortious if any unlawful means are employed.
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
- AC 269, 324
English law | ||
---|---|---|
Core subjects | ||
Further subjects | ||
Related systems | ||
This case law article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |