D.C. Thompson & Company, Limited v Arthur Deakin and Others

For an interlocutory injunction based on procuring a breach of contract, the claimant must show a strong prima facie case. The tort requires knowledge of the contract, an intention to cause its breach, and an unlawful or wrongful act which brings about the breach and resulting damage. Liability may arise through procuring a servant or other third party to commit a wrongful act, but only where the resulting breach is a necessary practical consequence. Lawful conduct, general appeals to take lawful action and bad motive alone are insufficient. The effect of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 was left undecided.

The plaintiffs, printers and publishers, appealed from Mr Justice Upjohn’s refusal to grant interlocutory injunctions against trade union officials. The dispute followed the plaintiffs’ dismissal of an employee who belonged to NATSOPA and concerned their longstanding opposition to union membership.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had procured employees of paper and ink suppliers to refuse work, thereby causing breaches of supply contracts. The central issues were whether the alleged conduct constituted actionable interference with contractual relations, whether a conspiracy had been shown, and what protection might be available under the Trade Disputes Act 1906.

1. Disposition. The appeal was unanimously dismissed. The plaintiffs had not established a sufficient prima facie case for interlocutory relief.
2. Interlocutory evidence. Irreparable injury alone did not justify an injunction. The claimant had to show at least a prima facie, and in this case a strong prima facie, right to relief. On affidavit evidence, unchallenged sworn assertions by the defendants could not be disregarded unless clearly shown to be wrong, although the court could draw natural and reasonable inferences from the whole material.
3. Common-law principles. Loss caused by an act lawful in itself is generally damnum absque injuria. A bad motive does not make lawful conduct unlawful. The court adopted the general approach stated in Crofter Harris Tweed Company v Veitch [1942] AC 435, Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1, Ware & de Freville v Motor Trade Association [1921] 3 KB 40 and Sorrell v Smith [1925] AC 700.
4. Actionable interference. The tort was not confined to direct persuasion of a contracting party. It could include procuring a servant or other third party to commit a breach of contract or another wrongful act which prevented performance. The necessary ingredients included knowledge of the particular contract, intention to cause its breach, definite and unequivocal procurement of the wrongful act, an actual breach, resulting damage, and a necessary causal connection. The employees’ services had to be practically indispensable to performance. General exhortations to stop supplies did not suffice.
5. Application. The evidence did not show that the first three defendants had instructed drivers to breach their contracts, that Briginshaw or Moncrieff had procured particular employees to do so, or that Morrison had instructed the loaders. The drivers had not been ordered to make deliveries, the employees’ contracts had not been shown to have been breached, and Bowaters might have arranged alternative delivery. No conspiracy to procure unlawful acts was established.
6. Statutory issues. The court declined to decide the effect of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. The Master of the Rolls expressed a tentative view that statutory protection of conduct against an employer would not necessarily make an employee’s breach lawful or defeat an otherwise established claim. Jenkins LJ and Morris LJ also left the issue open. Sections 4 and 5 provided no answer if the claim had otherwise been made out.
7. Order. The defendants’ costs of the appeal were made costs in the action, and leave to appeal was granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 26 June 1952, the appeal from the refusal of interlocutory relief was dismissed. The defendants’ appeal costs were made costs in the action, and leave to appeal was granted: [1952] EWCA Civ 5.
• High Court: Mr Justice Upjohn refused the plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory injunctions.