X decided to negotiate an agreement for working conditions with TGWU only. Another union (WU) objected to this since it too had members working for X, and decided to boycott X’s barges, preventing X’s barges from operating (since tugboat men etc wouldn’t operate the barges). HL granted an injunction sought against the officials of the WU union. P, who hired barges for their business could not do so as a result of the embargo, bringing their business to a standstill. They sought an injunction restraining WU from persisting with the embargo, and asking for damages from WU. HL granted this, on the grounds that WU knowingly induced breaches of the hire contract between X and P, which was tortious. C,E&M: The willingness to infer WU’s knowledge of the contracts from little evidence makes it easier for Jenkins LJs’ criteria to be satisfied
Viscount Radcliffe: He rejected the argument that the breach of the hire contracts was a necessary consequence of the WU’s actions, since members of other unions could be hired: This is unrealistic.