The doctrine of civil conspiracy was enunciated by the House of Lords in

Question

Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prescribes the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. Section 25-O provides for the procedure for closing an undertaking of an industrial establishment. Under Section 25-N of the Act before retrenchment of workman can be affected two conditions must be fulfilled namely (a) the workman has been given three months’ notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the said period; and (b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government has been obtained by the employer upon an application having been made. Sub-section (3) of Section 25-N vests power in the State Government to grant or refuse permission to retrench an employee. Section 25-O enjoins an employer, who intends to close an undertaking to apply for prior permission at least ninety days before the date on which the intended closure is to become effective, setting out the reasons for the intended closure and simultaneously serve a copy of such application on the representatives of the workmen in the prescribed manner. Sub-section (9) of Section 25-O provides that where an undertaking is permitted to be closed or permission for closure is deemed to be granted, every workman, who is employed in that undertaking immediately before the date of application for permission under the said section, shall be entitled to receive compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months.
Evidently, both Section 25-N and 25-O are couched in a mandatory form. They give effect to the public policy of preventing the exploitation of labour by commanding the employer to follow the defined process for retrenchment of an individual or group of employees or for closure of the establishment as such.
Evidently, both Section 25-N and 25-O are couched in a mandatory form. They give effect to the public policy of preventing the exploitation of labour by commanding the employer to follow the defined process for retrenchment of an individual or group of employees or for closure of the establishment as such.

Answer 1

The doctrine of civil conspiracy turns on the predominant purpose test, and only one of these cases actually applied it to impose liability.

Moghul Steamship: The combination here was found not liable, because its predominant purpose was legitimate trade competition, so this case sets a boundary on the tort rather than establishing liability under it.
Allen v. Flood: Involves a single individual, not a combination of persons, so it falls outside the scope of a conspiracy claim altogether.
Walsby v. Anley: Not connected with the tort of civil conspiracy.
Quinn v. Leathem: The House of Lords found the trade union officials liable here, because their predominant purpose was to injure the butcher rather than advance any legitimate interest of their own, this is the case that actually enunciates and applies the doctrine.

Since only this case results in liability being imposed for a conspiracy to injure, the correct answer is Quinn v. Leathem.

Answer 2

Tracing the chronological development of this line of House of Lords cases shows how the doctrine took shape and where it was finally settled.

Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892): The starting point, holding that combining to protect one's own trade by lawful means is not actionable, even if it harms a competitor.
Allen v. Flood (1898): Extended the reasoning to individual action, holding that even malicious individual conduct causing harm is not actionable if the means used are lawful.
Quinn v. Leathem (1901): Distinguished from both earlier cases because here there was a combination of persons whose predominant purpose was found to be injuring the plaintiff, not advancing any legitimate interest of their own, and the House of Lords held them liable in conspiracy. This case is where the doctrine of civil conspiracy was actually applied to fix liability, marking it as the case that enunciated the doctrine in its operative form.

Following the line of authority to where liability was actually established points to the same case.

Therefore, the correct answer is Quinn v. Leathem.

Answer 3

Tracing the chronological development of this line of House of Lords cases shows how the doctrine took shape and where it was finally settled.

Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892): The starting point, holding that combining to protect one's own trade by lawful means is not actionable, even if it harms a competitor.
Allen v. Flood (1898): Extended the reasoning to individual action, holding that even malicious individual conduct causing harm is not actionable if the means used are lawful.
Quinn v. Leathem (1901): Distinguished from both earlier cases because here there was a combination of persons whose predominant purpose was found to be injuring the plaintiff, not advancing any legitimate interest of their own, and the House of Lords held them liable in conspiracy. This case is where the doctrine of civil conspiracy was actually applied to fix liability, marking it as the case that enunciated the doctrine in its operative form.

Following the line of authority to where liability was actually established points to the same case.

Therefore, the correct answer is Quinn v. Leathem.

The doctrine of civil conspiracy was enunciated by the House of Lords in

Show Hint

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Labour & Industrial Law

Questions Asked in AIBE exam