Brisbane Shipwrights' Provident Union v Heggie [1906] HCA 4

Brisbane Shipwrights' Provident Union v Heggie [1906] HCA 4 - HCA 1906 case summary — Zoe

[11]

missed, the shipwrights then at work would be called out, an no union shipwright would be allowed to work in the for the Government whilst the plaintiff was employed Government therein? Answer - Yes. a Question 4. - Did the defendants, by the statements a sentations of the defendants Arcus, Dawson, and Mitch at the interview aforesaid, mean and intend the aforesaid o of the Government to understand, and did he understand, th statements and representations to mean, that if the plaintiff not dismissed, the defendants would, so long as he was re in the Government employment as a shipwright at the said ¢ forbid any Union shipwright working for the said Gover and had the power and would use the power, to pu shipwright who might, contrary to their request, take such 1 and that the Government would be prevented from obt sufficient or competent shipwrights to perform the work nec and proper to be, from time to time, done at the said dock the Government? If not, say what they did mean and inte Answer - Yes. Question 5. - Did the defendants, by the statements a presentations made at such interview by the defendants
Mitchell, and Dawson, to the aforesaid proper officer Government, induce, procure, and coerce the said proper off the Government, and the Government through him, to miss the plaintiff from his employment under the Gover the 6th day of June 1903, and to cease thenceforth to e him, and to refuse to further employ him? Answer - Yes. Question 6 - Did the defendants do the acts aforesaid wit intent to injure the plaintiff and to deprive him of the o of earning his livelihood as a shipwright - (a) absolutely; he paid the defendant Union the sum of £2 for entrance fee, applied to become a member of the Union? Ans absolutely until he paid the defendant Union the sum of £ entrance fee, and applied to become a member of the Unio Question 7. - Were the acts of the defendants found by 0 your answers to the previous questions wrongful and m Answer - Yes. Question 7A. - Did the defendants do the acts aforesaid

[67]

(1), remarked : - *The notion that there may be a dif respect between acts affecting trade or employment acts seems to be largely founded on certain dicta of Bo in the case of The Mogul Steamship Co. It must be that these were obiter dicta, for the decision was defendants were not liable. The passage perhaps ch upon is the following : - Now intentionally to do that calculated in the ordinary course of events to damage, does in fact damage, another in that other person's pr trade, is actionable if done without just cause or excus intentional action when done without just cause or excuse the law calls a malicious wrong.' It will be noted that the k Judge here makes no distinction between acts which with property and those which interfere with trade. purpose then in hand the statement of the law may be act enough, but if it means that a man is bound in law to j excuse every wilful act which may damage another in his or trade, then I say, with all respeet, the proposition is wide; everything depends on the nature of the act, or whe is wrongful or not." Subject to this limitation, whieh, respect, seems to be implied in the concluding words of B LJ., not quoted by Lord Herschel, that very learned J we understand him, accepted the doctrines propounded passage which he was criticising, and which, in our opi good law. In Quinn v. Leathem (2), Lord Lindley said: - 'As plaintiff's rights. He had the ordinary rights of a Brit He was at liberty to earn his living in his own way, provid did not violate some special law prohibiting him from so d and provided he did not infringe the rights of other people. liberty involved liberty to deal with other persons who | willing to deal with him. This liberty is a right recognize law; its correlative is the general duty of every one no prevent the free exercise of this liberty, except so far as hi liberty of action may justify him in so doing. But ap liberty or right to deal with others is nugatory, unless at liberty to deal with him if they choose to do $0. (1) (1898) A.C., 1, at p. 139. (2) (1901) A.C., 495, at p. 534.

[68]

ference is justifiable in point of law, he has no redress. such interference is wrongful, the only person who can pect of it is, as a rule, the person immediately affected another who suffers by it has usually no redress; the to him is too remote, and it would be obviously pratically sible and highly inconvenient to give legal redress to all who om such wrongs. But if the interference is wrongful and ded to damage a third person, and he is damaged in fact ther words, if he is wrongfully and intentionally struck at others, and is thereby damnified - the whole aspect of is changed: the wrong done to others reaches him, his ts are infringed although indirectly, and damage to him is jote or unforeseen, but is the direct consequence of what ndone. Our law, as I understand it, is not so defective him a remedy by an action under such circumstances. collected in the old books on actions on the case, and strations given by the late Bowen LJ. in his admirable nt in the Mogul Steamship Company's Case (1), may be med to in support of the foregoing conclusion, and I do not erstand the decision in Allen y. Flood (2) to be opposed to it." edo not think it necessary to discuss in further detail the opinions expressed by the learned Judges who took part he decisions of these cases, and the other cases referred to in guments addressed to us, but we think that they establish 'rules or doctrines applicable to all actions for what are called us injuries, which will go far towards solving the questions in the present case. e first rule is that any interference with the rights of , Which in fact occasions damages to him, is actionable, s such interference is authorized, or justified, or excused by In this proposition the term " rights" includes the right ich every man possesses to the free enjoyment, subject to any fic rule of law, of his personal liberty ; which, again, includes fom to make, subject to any specific rule of law, such employ- Bh of his capacities, mental or physical, as he may think fit, 'to invite the co-operation of any person he may think fit in B.D., 598, at pp. 613, 614. (2) (1898) A.C., 1.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (111 paragraphs)