Conway v. Wade [1909] UKHL 578 (27 July 1909)

The defendant's act was not done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, but for personal motives, and thus is not protected by section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. The use of threats to procure the plaintiff's dismissal constitutes an actionable wrong.

Citation: [1909] UKHL 578
Parties: Appellant: Conway; Respondent: Wade
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 27 July 1909
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal From Court of Appeal to House of Lords
Outcome: appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; judgment for appellant restored
Legal Topics: Interference With Employment, Trade Dispute, Liability of Trade Union Officials, Application of Trade Disputes Act 1906

Employment Law Trade Union Law Tort Law Interference With Employment Trade Dispute Liability of Trade Union Officials Application of 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Conway

Appellant

Wade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Court of Appeal to House of Lords

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant's act was done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute under Trade Disputes Act 1906, section 3
2 Whether threats to an employer to procure discharge of an employee constitute an actionable wrong
3 Whether Trade Disputes Act 1906, section 3, protects acts not connected to a genuine trade dispute

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; judgment for appellant restored

Orders

Judgment for appellant Conway
Costs awarded to appellant here and below