Legal Case Summary
Rookes v Barnard and others [1964] UKHL 1, [1964] AC 1129
Tort; employment; trade union
Facts
The claimant was a skilled draughtsman and employee of the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC). He resigned his membership of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen (AESD), a registered trade union. It was agreed between BOAC and AESD (among others) that no strike or lockout should take place and disputes should be handled by arbitration. The claimant refused to rejoin AESD and his union member colleagues decided to withdraw their labour unless the claimant was removed from their office. The claimant was thus suspended and later dismissed with a week’s pay in lieu of notice.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
The claimant brought an action for damages arguing that unlawful means were used to induce BOAC to terminate his contract of service and that conspiracy was committed by strike threats to have him dismissed. At trial, the jury found that the defendants had combined to threaten strike action and that their strike threats had caused the claimant’s dismissal. It was also held that the strike threats were unlawful, in breach of the agreement between BOAC and AESD and thus, actionable as tort due to the harm they caused to the claimant. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that despite the existence of a tort of intimidation, the threat to break a contract was not covered by it. The claimant appealed, the defendants cross-appealed.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords allowed Rookes’s appeal on liability. It held that the tort of intimidation was an established tort and as such, it included threats of criminal and tortious acts as well as threats of contractual breaches. Secondly, the tort of intimidation could have been committed by a single person and it was actionable if done without agreement or combination – thus, section 1 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 provided no defence. Thirdly, the Court held that section 3 of the Act did not protect the inducement of a breach of contract or interference with trade, business or employment where these were brought about by intimidation or other unlawful means.
The House ordered a new trial on damages only. Lord Devlin distinguished aggravated damages, which compensate for harm, from exemplary damages, which punish. He identified three categories for exemplary damages: oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional conduct by government servants, conduct calculated to yield a profit likely to exceed the compensation payable, and cases where a statute expressly authorises the award. The jury’s award of £7,500 could not stand.
