DC Thompson & Company, Ltd. v Deakin & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an interlocutory appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Upjohn refusing interlocutory relief sought by the Plaintiffs against several trade union officials. The dispute arose from the Plaintiffs' longstanding policy, dating back to 1926, of refusing to employ any person who was a member of a trade union. Despite this policy, many of their employees had joined the National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants (NATSOPA), of which two Defendants were officers.

The immediate cause of the dispute was the dismissal of an employee, Mr. McKay, who was a member of NATSOPA. In response, NATSOPA called a strike starting on 19 April, supported by other unions including the Transport and General Workers Union and the Paperworkers Union. The unions’ actions included picketing the Plaintiffs’ works and exhorting others to withhold supplies of raw materials, particularly paper and ink, to the Plaintiffs.

Bowaters, the supplier of paper to the Plaintiffs, ceased deliveries from 28 April after its employees, members of the relevant unions, expressed unwillingness to load or drive paper to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately induced breaches of contract by persuading Bowaters’ employees to refuse performance, thereby causing irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs’ business.

The Plaintiffs sought injunctions restraining the Defendants from acts intended to cause breaches of contract between the Plaintiffs and Bowaters, as well as damages for conspiracy and procuring breaches of contract. The appeal concerns whether interlocutory relief should have been granted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie right to interlocutory injunctions restraining the Defendants from acts with a view to causing breaches of contract between the Plaintiffs and their suppliers.
2. Whether the Defendants’ acts constituted wrongful interference with contractual relations under common law, notwithstanding the protections of the Trade Disputes Act 1906.
3. Whether the alleged conspiracy among the Defendants to procure breaches of contract was made out on the evidence.
4. The scope and limitations of the tort of procuring breaches of contract, particularly in the context of trade disputes and union activities.
5. The applicability and interpretation of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 as a defence to claims of inducing breaches of contract.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Defendants knowingly and deliberately induced employees of Bowaters, who were union members, to break their contracts of employment by refusing to load or drive paper to the Plaintiffs, thereby causing Bowaters to breach its contract with the Plaintiffs.
• This inducement constituted a wrongful act under common law, entitling the Plaintiffs to interlocutory relief.
• The Defendants’ conduct was not protected by the Trade Disputes Act 1906 because it involved unlawful means, specifically procuring breaches of contract.
• The alleged conspiracy among the Defendants to procure breaches of contract should not be ignored simply because the predominant object was to secure the Defendants’ interests rather than to injure the Plaintiffs.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants denied giving any instructions to their members to break contracts or refuse to load or drive paper for the Plaintiffs.
• The evidence showed that any refusal to work was voluntary and not directed by the Defendants.
• The Defendants’ actions were lawful trade union activities protected under the Trade Disputes Act 1906.
• There was no evidence of a conspiracy to procure breaches of contract with the necessary intention and knowledge.
• Any failure by Bowaters to deliver was a commercial decision made to avoid conflict and not caused by unlawful inducement by the Defendants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of the facts and legal principles concerning the tort of procuring breaches of contract. It recognized the well-established principle that a person who acts lawfully, even with malicious intent, does not commit a tort. The tort arises only when a person knowingly and intentionally interferes with contractual relations by unlawful means or by procuring an actual breach of contract.

The court analyzed whether the Defendants had directly or indirectly procured breaches of contract by inducing Bowaters’ employees to refuse to perform their contractual duties. It found no sufficient evidence that the Defendants gave explicit instructions or took unlawful steps to procure breaches. The affidavits of the Defendants, supported by documentary evidence, displaced the Plaintiffs’ assertions of inducement.

The court also considered the nature of the alleged conspiracy and found no prima facie proof that such a conspiracy existed with the necessary knowledge and intention to procure breaches. The resolutions of the unions’ Executive Council were interpreted as general support for the dispute rather than unlawful conspiratorial acts.

Regarding the Trade Disputes Act 1906, the court noted that while the Act protects certain union activities, it does not render lawful acts that are otherwise tortious. However, the court declined to definitively rule on the statutory defence given the insufficiency of evidence to establish a tort at common law.

The court emphasized the necessity of showing actual knowledge of the contract and unequivocal inducement of breach by the Defendants. It held that general exhortations or support for a strike do not amount to actionable interference absent unlawful means.

Finally, the court acknowledged the practical difficulties in proving causation and the necessity that the breach by employees be a necessary consequence of the Defendants’ conduct, which was not demonstrated.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, upholding the refusal of interlocutory relief.

The decision means that the Plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case for injunctions against the Defendants on the basis of procuring breaches of contract. The court found no sufficient evidence of unlawful inducement or conspiracy. The ruling confirms the principle that lawful trade union activities, including strikes and exhortations, are not actionable interference absent unlawful means or direct procurement of breaches.

No new precedent was established beyond clarification of the application of existing principles to the facts. The parties were granted leave to appeal, recognizing the case's importance and complexity.