|
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:25 From: Jason Neyers Subject: OBG v Allen, Stratford v. Lindley and Lumley
Dear Colleagues: Do you think that the reasoning of the majority in OBG v Allen overrules part of the reasoning in Stratford v. Lindley? As I understand the Stratford case, their Lordships held that the Union who “blacked” the plaintiff Shipyard’s barges committed the Lumley tort in two ways. The first way was that the Union induced its members to breach their contracts with the individual employers who were leasing out the barges (from the plaintiff-Shipyard). The breach induced was that the employees refused orders from the employees to pilot the barges back to the plaintiff’s Shipyard. That seems correct to me and would make the Union liable to the renting-employers. The second way that the Union was said to have committed the tort was as follows. The union was said to have induced a breach of contract between the renters of the barges (the employers) and the Shipyard since the renters were required to return the barges and did not. The reason they failed to do so was that their employees would not take orders from the employers. Hence the Union was also liable to the Shipyard. The trouble I have is that it does not seem that the Union assisted or procured the breach of the barge renters (as required by Lord Hoffmann in OBG). Any thoughts? Is the Union liable to Shipyard using the analysis of Lumley in OBG. I realize that one might be able to dress up liability in the second example by using the breach by the employees in first example as unlawful means used by the Union against the Shipyard but I want to ignore that possibility for now (for my own sanity).
--
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»