Dimbleby v NUJ [1984] ICR 386

• Plaintiff (newspapers) entered a printing agreement with T printers.

• NUJ was involved in a trade dispute with T, and therefore ordered its members working for Plaintiff not to supply newspapers to T for printing.

• Plaintiff sought an injunction to stop this practice and damages for tortious interference with performance of the contract.

• HL granted this, holding that the existence of a trade dispute between NUJ and T did not exempt it from tort liability in a dispute with Plaintiff.

  • It was irrelevant that T was owned by the same parent company as Plaintiff. 

Lord Diplock

• He rejected the argument that because T and Plaintiff were associated companies, NUJ really had a trade dispute with Plaintiff too: They were separate corporate entities, and the Companies Act allowed the corporate veil to be used so as to let enterprises engage in new ventures with limited financial liability.

• This strongly militates against lifting the corporate veil except where parliament explicitly demands it (or on occasion if that intent of parliament is made clear from the statute).

• This is not the case here.