Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] Ch 20
Assault, capacity to carry out threats immediately, harassment
Facts
During a set of strikes organised by the National Union of Miners (NUM – the Defendant), the Claimant, who was a miner, wanted to continue working in the mines instead of going on strike. He, along with other miners who also wanted to continue working, had to be bussed to the mines so that they could get to work through the pickets. Every day this involved being driven through an aggressive crowd of striking miners (organised by the Defendant) who shouted threats towards the Claimant and others who were on the bus, in addition to making violent gestures in their direction. However, there was always police at the scene who stood between the pickets and the bus and in addition, the Claimant and the other miners were protected by the bus itself.
Issues
The issue in the case was whether it was necessary for the Defendant to be able to carry out his threats immediately for him to be guilty of an assault.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the actions of the Defendant could not constitute an assault as the crowd lacked the capacity to immediately carry out its threats. Capability to put a threat imminently was a necessary aspect of the tort of assault. However, the actions of the Defendant were actionable under the tort of nuisance, since they interfered with the Claimant’s right to use the highway and to attend work without harassment.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] Ch 20 as it remains reported. The legal principles described — that the tort of assault requires capacity to carry out a threat imminently, and that interference with the right to use the highway can found an action in nuisance — continue to represent the law as understood in English tort law. Students should be aware of two contextual points. First, the law of harassment has developed significantly since this decision, most notably through the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which created both a criminal offence and a statutory tort of harassment. Had that Act been in force at the time, the claimants might have had an additional cause of action. Second, subsequent case law, including Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, has clarified the requirements for private nuisance, including questions about who has standing to sue. The article’s summary of the nuisance point is broadly correct for its limited purpose but students should not treat it as a complete statement of nuisance principles. The article remains a reliable introductory summary of the case itself.
