Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch 106
Employment – Civil Procedure – Breach of Contract – Industry disputes – Injunctions – force majeure
Facts:
Cousins was part of a trade union. Members of the trade union called a strike at the Torbay Hotel and the Imperial hotel owned by the plaintiffs. Esso were contracted to deliver oil to the hotels but due to the strike, were unable to do so, requiring the plaintiffs to obtain oil from a different supplier at a higher price.The union members failed to comply with an undertaking to withdraw their strike. The plaintiffs issued a writ seeking damages against the union and individual members for its procurement of the breach of contract between Esso and the plaintiffs. Cousins and the other union members appealed.
Issues:
Whether the granting of an injunction against a third party was justified, where a contract clause allowed for any interference arising from a labour dispute.
Held:
Appeal dismissed as the plaintiffs had employed no members of the union and therefore, Cousins’ acts were against the manager and not in furtherance of a trade dispute within the meaning of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, s 4 (1). The case of Lumley v Gye [1853] 2 E & B 216 was distinguished as different considerations applied to indirect inducement in a competitive economy and there had been no inducement by unlawful means. Cousins and associates could not rely on any of the exceptions in the plaintiff’s contract with Esso, even where neither party would be liable for a breach if they were hindered by a force majeure or labour dispute. There was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiffs did mean to interfere directly with the contracts between the plaintiff and the fuel suppliers. Thus, the granting of injunctions was justified.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch 106, which remains a leading authority on the economic tort of inducing breach of contract (or, more precisely, its extension to interference with contractual relations short of breach). The case’s core legal principles continue to be recognised in English law.
However, readers should note several important developments. First, the Trade Disputes Act 1906 (referred to in the article) has long since been repealed and replaced by a series of legislative reforms, most significantly the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which now governs trade union immunities and the definition of a trade dispute. The statutory framework discussed in the article therefore no longer reflects current law, though the case retains significance as a common law authority.
Second, and importantly, the economic torts were substantially reconsidered by the House of Lords in OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21. That decision clarified and restructured the torts of inducing breach of contract and unlawful interference with trade. In particular, the House of Lords drew a clearer distinction between the tort of inducing breach of contract (requiring actual breach) and the broader tort of causing loss by unlawful means. The extended principle from Torquay Hotel — covering interference with performance of a contract falling short of breach — was not straightforwardly affirmed in OBG, and its precise status in light of that decision should be considered carefully. Students relying on Torquay Hotel for propositions about economic torts should read it alongside OBG Ltd v Allan.
The article remains a useful introduction to the case itself, but the legislative and doctrinal context has changed materially since 1969.
