Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:39

From: Barry Allan

Subject: Quinn v Leathem

Jason Neyers wrote:

Dear Colleagues:

I just had the (dis)pleasure of reading Quinn v. Leathem in depth for the first time and I found it to be one of the most poorly reasoned classic cases that I have ever read. Does anyone know of any contemporaneous discussions of the case that were hostile to the reasoning in the decision?

I've only a passing acquaintanceship with this case as it has never struck me as one of the classics, having been superseded by the Crofters case and by legislation. My only real recollection of the reasoning is where Halsbury says, in effect, "Logic? Bah! Who needs it". I think the lack of reasoning has a lot to do with the highly politicised nature of what the House of Lords was called upon to do.

There was, however, a 1903 Royal Commission which resulted from this case (and the Taff Vale Railway one) which in turn resulted in the Trade Disputes Act 1906, effectively reversing its effect when it came to trade unions and organised labour.

Barry

--
*****************************************
Barry Allan
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Law
University of Otago
PO Box 56
Dunedin
New Zealand
phone: ++(64) (03) 479 8830. fax:(03) 479 8855

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>