- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellants, seven small cloth producers operating on The Island, relied on yarn shipped from The Mainland and sold the finished fabric through mainland channels. The Respondents were senior officials of The Union; all dock workers at The Port were union members.
On 24 January 1938 the Respondents instructed those dock workers to refuse (i) further importation of yarn consigned to the Appellants and (ii) exportation of their partly-finished cloth. The “embargo” halted the Appellants’ business until an interim injunction was obtained on 24 February 1938.
At first instance the Scottish trial judge (Judge Jamieson) recalled the interim relief and dismissed the claim. The appellate division of the Court of Session upheld that decision (one judge dissenting). The present appeal—treated as one from Scotland to the House of Lords—asked whether the injunction should be restored.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Respondents, by imposing and maintaining the embargo, committed an actionable conspiracy (delict/tort) at common law against the Appellants.
- Whether a combination is unlawful when its predominant purpose is to advance the combiners’ own legitimate interests, even though it foreseeably damages another trader.
- Whether the existence of any wider arrangement between the Respondents and local mill-owners affected the legality of the embargo.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The embargo was a concerted plan whose real object was to drive the Appellants out of business; therefore it amounted to an unlawful conspiracy to injure.
- No genuine trade-union interest justified interference with yarn shipments; dock workers were “meddlesome busybodies” outside any trade dispute.
- A “deal” with the mill-owners proved the Respondents acted for collateral, anti-competitive aims, not to protect workers.
- Because damage was inevitable and intended, the lower courts erred in refusing a permanent injunction.
Respondents' Arguments
- The embargo pursued legitimate union objectives: safeguarding employment conditions, preventing price-cutting, and supporting collective bargaining; injury to the Appellants was incidental, not the predominant purpose.
- No breach of contract, violence, intimidation or other unlawful means were used; dock workers voluntarily exercised their right to withhold labour.
- Even if some understanding existed with mill-owners, each participant sought his own lawful economic interest, bringing the case within accepted trade-competition principles.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. [1892] AC 25 | A combination pursuing its own trade interests by lawful means is not actionable despite resultant damage to others. | Treated as the leading authority; embargo lawful because predominant aim was protection of union interests, not spite. |
| Allen v. Flood [1898] AC 1 | Acts lawful if done by an individual remain lawful even if malevolently motivated, absent infringement of a legal right. | Distinction reaffirmed: only the element of combination could create liability; here combination lacked purpose to injure. |
| Quinn v. Leathern [1901] AC 495 | A conspiracy whose predominant purpose is to injure is actionable. | Court contrasted Quinn (spiteful object) with present facts (protective object). |
| Sorrell v. Smith [1925] AC 700 | Dual propositions: (1) wilful combination to injure is unlawful; (2) combination to forward one’s own trade is lawful. | Framework used to analyse “predominant purpose”; court placed case in second category. |
| Ware & De Freville Ltd v. Motor Trade Assn. [1921] 3 KB 40 | Price-maintenance combination lawful when directed to mutual commercial benefit. | Cited as parallel for strong but lawful concerted pressure. |
| Giblan v. National Amalgamated Labourers' Union [1903] 2 KB 600 | Example where combination was not justified because predominant object was punishment. | Used to illustrate contrast with non-punitive motives here. |
| Thompson v. British Medical Assn. [1924] AC 764 | Conspiracy principles apply outside ordinary trade contexts. | Cited to confirm breadth of doctrine but not decisive. |
| Hodges v. Webb [1920] 2 Ch 70 | Legitimate collective action may incidentally harm non-members. | Support for finding that union solidarity can justify embargo. |
| Bradford Corp. v. Pickles [1895] AC 587 | Lawful act is not actionable merely because motivated by ill-will. | Reinforces irrelevance of motive where conduct lawful. |
| Temperton v. Russell (1893) 1 QB 715 | Earlier view on inducing contract breach; contrasted with later authorities. | Mentioned historically; not relied upon. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
All five Law Lords delivered detailed opinions; the following synthesises their common reasoning.
- Agreement and Damage: The Respondents undeniably combined and their instructions caused substantial loss; elements (a) and (c) of civil conspiracy were satisfied.
- Unlawful Purpose? The critical inquiry was element (b)—whether the predominant purpose of the combination was to injure the Appellants. Applying the test in Sorrell v. Smith, the majority concluded that the Respondents’ true object was to bolster union bargaining power, stabilise prices and safeguard wages, not to destroy the Appellants.
- Mixed Motives and “Deal” with Mill-owners: Even assuming some understanding with manufacturers, each participant sought a lawful benefit (monopoly on island-spun yarn for employers; 100 % membership and wage security for the union). The existence of parallel benefits did not convert the effort into a conspiracy to injure.
- No Unlawful Means: The embargo involved no breach of contract, threats, violence or statutory illegality; dock workers freely withheld labour. Without unlawful means or aim, liability could not attach.
- Role of Malevolence: The House reaffirmed that personal ill-will is not an essential element; liability turns on the objective purpose of the concerted acts.
- Precedential Synthesis: The decision harmonises Mogul, Allen and Quinn—only a concerted, wilful intention to cause wrongful harm triggers liability; lawful pursuit of self-interest does not.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The injunction originally sought by the Appellants was rightly refused; the Respondents committed no actionable conspiracy.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that, under both Scottish delict and English tort principles, a combination is not unlawful merely because its inevitable effect is commercial harm. Courts must identify the predominant purpose; when that purpose is the legitimate protection or advancement of the combiners’ own economic interests and no unlawful means are used, liability will not follow. Trade unions and employers may therefore engage in robust collective action, provided it pursues legitimate goals and avoids independently unlawful conduct.
Alert