D.C. Thompson & Company, Ltd. v Deakin & Ors [1952] EWCA Civ 5 (26 June 1952)

D.C. Thompson & Company, Ltd. v Deakin & Ors [1952] EWCA Civ 5 (26 June 1952)

The evidence does not establish that the defendants, or any of them, procured or induced any party to commit a breach of contract with the plaintiffs by unlawful means. There is no sufficient case of conspiracy or direct or indirect procurement of breach of contract. Lawful acts, even if motivated by a desire to injure, are not actionable unless they involve unlawful means or actual breach of contract. The requirements for the tort of procuring breach of contract are not met on the facts presented.

Citation
[1952] EWCA Civ 5
Parties
Plaintiff: D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd.; Defendant: Arthur Deakin; Defendant: Mr. Intin; Defendant: Mr. Wood; Defendant: Mr. Briginshaw; Defendant: Mr. Moncrieff; Defendant: Mr. Morrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 1952
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Appeal From Order of Mr. Justice Upjohn
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Procuring Breach of Contract, Trade Union Actions, Interlocutory Injunctions, Conspiracy, Trade Disputes Act 1906
Tort Law Labour Law Procuring Breach of Contract Trade Union Actions Interlocutory Injunctions Conspiracy Trade Disputes Act 1906

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff

Arthur Deakin

Defendant

Mr. Intin

Defendant

Mr. Wood

Defendant

Mr. Briginshaw

Defendant

Mr. Moncrieff

Defendant

Mr. Morrison

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Appeal From Order of Mr. Justice Upjohn

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants committed the tort of procuring a breach of contract by inducing third parties to withhold supplies from the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether a conspiracy existed among the defendants to achieve an unlawful objective
  3. 3 Whether acts done by trade unions in support of a trade dispute are actionable under common law or the Trade Disputes Act 1906

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence does not establish that the defendants, or any of them, procured or induced any party to commit a breach of contract with the plaintiffs by unlawful means. There is no sufficient case of conspiracy or direct or indirect procurement of breach of contract. Lawful acts, even if motivated by a desire to injure, are not actionable unless they involve unlawful means or actual breach of contract. The requirements for the tort of procuring breach of contract are not met on the facts presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutory injunction refused.

Orders

  • No injunction granted against any of the defendants.
  • No finding of conspiracy or unlawful procurement of breach of contract.