Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Stratford v Lindley

[1965] AC 269

Case summary last updated at 17/02/2020 20:10 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Stratford v Lindley

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. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Labour Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Labour Law Notes

Labour Law Notes >>