Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Industrial action, duress and the seafarers’ wearfare fund

  • 16 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1

    See Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 s. 13(1)

  2. 4

    See, for instance,Allen v. Flood [1898] A.C.1;Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. Ltd. v. Veitch [1942] A.C. 435.

  3. 5

    E.g. Trade Disputes Act 1906 s.1 provided immunity from liability for combination to injure another in his trade without justification — seeQuinn v. Leathern [l90l] A.C. 495 and the Trade Disputes Act 1965 passed to provide protection from the tort of intimidation — seeRookes v. Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129.

  4. 6

    See, for instance,Meade v. Haringey B.C. [1979] I.C.R. 494

  5. 8

    Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.).

  6. 9

    Supra note 1. See Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 s. 13(1)

  7. 11

    N. W.L. Ltd. v. Woods [1979] I.C.R. 867;infra note 58.

  8. 12

    Supra note 1. See Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 s. 13(1)

  9. 13

    See textinfra 5–8 and note 36United Austalia Ltd. v. Barclay’s Bank Ltd. [1941] A.C. 1, 29; see alsosupra note 10, concerning the relevance of the “trade dispute” criterion.

  10. 14

    Astley v. Reynolds (1731) 2 Stra. 915;T. D. Keegan Ltd. v. Palmer |1961| 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449.

  11. 15

    Skeate v. Beale (1840) 11 Ad. & El. 983.

  12. 16

    [1975] Q.B. 326.

  13. 17

    Ibid. [1975] Q.B. 326. at 339.

  14. 18

    See Cheshire and Fifoot,Law of Contract, London, Butterworths, 10th edition (by M. P.Furmston), 277.

  15. 19

    Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti |1976| 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293.

  16. 20

    However, the plaintiffs succeeded on the ground of misrepresentation by the defendants.

  17. 21

    [1976] 293, 336.

  18. 22

    North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. |1979| Q.B. 705.

  19. 23

    Ibid. North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. |1979| Q.B. at 719. (However, in the immediate case, the plaintiffs lost the right to avoid by conduct amounting to affirmation). See also Lord Scarman inPao On v. Lau Yiu |1980| A.C. 614, 636 and inBurmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Bank of England |1980| A.C. 1090, 1140.

  20. 24

    Supra note 14.Astley v. Reynolds (1731) 2 Stra. 915.

  21. 25

    Supra note 8.Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.)

  22. 26

    Supra note 1 See Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 s. 13(1)

  23. 27

    [1981] LCR. 129, 161.

  24. 28

    Ibid. [1981] LCR. 129, 161 at 163–4.

  25. 29

    Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.) at 819.

  26. 30

    Ibid. Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.)at 820.

  27. 31

    Ibid. Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.) at 833.

  28. 32

    See, for instance, Lord Hodson inRookes v. Barnard, supra note 5 at 1203, and Lord Denning inHadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton [1981] I.R.L.R. 210, 214.

  29. 33

    See, for instance,Rookes v. Barnard, supra note 5, andHadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton, supra note 32. An appeal from the latter decision was later allowed by the House of Lords — [1982] 2 W.L.R. 322. See also Lord Diplock in theUniverse case,supra note 8 at 814A.

  30. 34

    Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.) at 819.

  31. 35

    Supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161 at 160.

  32. 36

    See Lord Simon inUnited Australia Ltd. v. Barclay’s Bank Ltd. [l94l] A.C. 1, 29.

  33. 37

    [1982] 2 W.L.R. 322, 335–6.

  34. 41

    T.U.L.R.A. s.29(l)(a).

  35. 42

    Viz. s.29. see Megaw L.J.,supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161at 161 E-G.

  36. 43

    see Megaw L.J.,ibid. at 163 C-E.

  37. 44

    See Lord Cross of Chelsea,supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (C.A.) at 820D, describing the rejection of this argument as “common ground” between the parties:cf. Lord Diplock,ibid. at 816 and 818 A-B, who nevertheless expressed an opinion on the argument.

  38. 46

    Supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161 at 164A.

  39. 47

    Ibid. at 163 G — 164 A.

  40. 48

    Ibid. Supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161 at 145 B.

  41. 49

    Ibid. Supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161 at 144 C.

  42. 50

    Per Lord Diplocksupra note 8 at 817H — 818 A,per Lord Cross; 820 H — 822 B,per Lord Russell at 825 C.

  43. 51

    Ibid. Per Lord Diplocksupra note 8 at 817H — 818 A,per Lord Cross; 820 H — 822 B,per Lord Russell at 815 C — D.

  44. 52

    See Lord Denning M.R. inB.B.C. v. Hearn [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1004, 1010, approved by Lord Diplock himself inHadmor Prodactions Ltd. v. Hamilton, supra note 37 [1982] 2 W.L.R. 322, 335–6. at 331 G — H.

  45. 53

    Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 817 C — E. See also Lord Cross at 821 G — 822 A.

  46. 54

    For the full objects and rules of the fund, see Lord DiplockIbid. Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 810 E — 811 A.

  47. 55

    Per Lord DiplockIbid. Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 817 G — H, andper Lord CrossIbid. Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 821 G — 822 A.

  48. 58

    Supra note 11N. W.L. Ltd. v. Woods [1979] I.C.R. 867; at 876.

  49. 59

    Supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161. at 162 G — 163 B.

  50. 60

    Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 818 E — 819 B.

  51. 61

    See Lord ScarmanIbid. Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 831 C.

  52. 62

    See Lord ScarmanIbid. Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 831 F-H.

  53. 63

    See Lord ScarmanIbid. Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 831 C-D and Lord Brandonibid. at 835 F — 836 C.

  54. 65

    Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 816 A.

  55. 66

    Supra note 27 at 164A.Supra note 47. at 163 G — 164 A.

  56. 67

    supa note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 813 E,

  57. 69

    See textsupra at 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). and note 64.

  58. 70

    See Lord Diplock,supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 812 F-H, and Parker J.,supra note 27 [1981] LCR. 129, 161. at 143 F-G.

  59. 72

    See textsupra at 3–5.

  60. 73

    seeHolland v. London Society of Compositors (1924) 40 T.L.R. 440;Burton Group Ltd. v. Smith [1977] I.R.L.R. 351. However, it has been accepted that a specific agency can be created by agreement — see Arnold J. inBurton, ibid. at 353;Edwards v. Skyways Ltd. [1964] 1 W.L.R. 349;Deane v. Craik (1962) Times, March 16th.

  61. 75

    seeFord Motor Co. v. Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers [1969] 2 Q.B. 303.

  62. 76

    See S. D. Anderman, “The ‘Status Quo’ Issue and Industrial Disputes Procedures: Some Implications for Labour Law”, 4Industrial Law Journal (1975), 13, for nature and form of “status quo” agreements.

  63. 77

    See T.U.L.R.A. s.30 for the definition of “collective agreement” and s.29 for potential contents of an agreement.

  64. 78

    However, acquiescence by the “aggrieved” party would forfeit the right to avoid:supra note 23. at 719. (However, in the immediate case, the plaintiffs lost the right to avoid by conduct amounting to affirmation). See also Lord Scarman inPao On v. Lau Yiu |1980| A.C. 614, 636 and inBurmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Bank of England |1980| A.C. 1090, 1140.

  65. 79

    See, for instance,Quinn v. Leathern, supra note 5, as an illustration of the emphasis upon the individual in industrial action cases — particularly Lord McNaghten at 511, and Lord Lindley at 538. In the context of the “commercial damage” criterion, T.U.L.R.A. S.17(2), inserted by the Employment Protection Act 1975 Sched. 16 Part III Para. 6, imposed certain procedural requirements on the granting of interlocutory injunctions in industrial action cases because the “balance of probabilities” test for the granting of such injunctions generally, formulated inAmerican Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C. 396,

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to R. D. Hendry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hendry, R.D. Industrial action, duress and the seafarers’ wearfare fund. Liverpool Law Rev 4, 135–145 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185318

Download citation

Keywords

  • Industrial Action
  • Supra Note
  • Industrial Relation
  • Crew Member
  • Statutory Provision