JT Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley
- [1965] AC 269
- [1964] 3 WLR 541
- [1964] 3 All ER 102
- [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep 133
- [1964] 7 WLUK 102
- 108 SJLB 636
- (1964) 108 SJ 636
- [1964] CLY 3702
- JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep 138 (High Court)
- JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1964] 2 WLR 1002 (Court of Appeal)
- JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1969] 1 WLUK 7 (High Court)
- JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1969] 1 WLR 1547 (Court of Appeal)
JT Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley [1965] 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.[1]
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
- v
- t
- e
Collective action sources
TULRCA 1992 s 219
Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216
Taff Vale Railway Co v ASRS [1901] AC 426
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435
JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1965] AC 269
Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch 106
Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton [1983] 2 AC 570
TULRCA 1992 s 244
BBC v Hearn [1977] ICR 686
UCL Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison [1999] ICR 204
Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF [1983] 1 AC 366
TULRCA 1992 ss 226-234
P v NASUWT [2003] 2 AC 663
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (No 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 669
Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009]
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 [2008] ECHR 1345
RMT v UK [2014]
see UK labour and unions
Notes
- ^ [1965] AC 269, 324
![]() | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- v
- t
- e