Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1889] LR 23 QBD 598
Tort – Conspiracy to Injury – Damages
Facts:
The plaintiffs were independent shipowners who sent their ships to the cargo port to obtain cargo. An association (the defendants), also in the business of owning cargo ships, sent more ships down to the port and reduced their freights so low that the plaintiffs were unable to make a profit. They further threatened to dismiss any agents who loaded the plaintiff’s ships. The plaintiff brought action alleging a conspiracy to injury and requested damages.
Issues:
Whether the defendant’s actions were unlawful and deemed an indictable offence by way of a conspiracy.
Held:
The defendants had acted in an effort to protect their own profits and trade which was considered to be a lawful objective. No unlawful acts had taken place to warrant any wrongdoing, so therefore the plaintiffs had no cause of action. To prove that a conspiracy constituting an indictable offence occurred, a “matter contrary to law” would have to be shown to have occurred. Lord Halsbury found it impossible to suggest that there had been any malicious intention to injure rival traders, except in the sense that they intended their competitors to withdraw from trade. The defendant’s actions were therefore considered to be actions taken to support their own business interests. Further, unlawful acts would have to involve obstruction, violence, interference or molestation to meet the definition. None of those occurred. The appeal was upheld and no cause of action was available for the plaintiffs.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the decision in Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co, which was affirmed by the House of Lords in [1892] AC 25. The case continues to be cited as an authority on the tort of conspiracy, in particular the distinction between lawful and unlawful means conspiracy, and on the limits of actionable competitive conduct.
Readers should note that the law of economic torts, including conspiracy, has developed considerably since 1889. The two modern forms of the tort — unlawful means conspiracy and lawful means conspiracy — are now more clearly delineated following cases such as Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network SL [2008] UKHL 19 and OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, which refined the requirements for unlawful means in economic tort claims generally. The article’s focus on the historical decision is sound, but students should be aware that these later authorities are essential reading when applying conspiracy principles in a modern context.
