
Allen v. Flood
Encyclopedia
Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1 is a leading case in English law
on intentionally inflicted economic loss.
because the contracts began afresh with a new day's work.
In the course of his judgment Lord Davey pointed out an ‘employer may refuse to employ [an individual] for the most mistaken, capricious, malicious or morally reprehensible motives that can be conceived, but the workman has no right of action against him.’
Cave J said,
case in the context of union strike action
, Rookes v Barnard, Lord Devlin expressed disapproval. However Allen v. Flood was approved by the House of Lords in the recent case of OBG v Allan.
English law
English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries and the United States except Louisiana...
on intentionally inflicted economic loss.
Facts
A trade union official told an employer his members would not work alongside the claimants. The employer was pressured to get rid of the claimants. For the loss of work, the claimants sued the trade union official. An important fact is that all the workers in the case were only hired day by day. Therefore, the trade union official had never threatened a breach of contractBreach of contract
Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance....
because the contracts began afresh with a new day's work.
High Court
Kennedy J presided over the trial where the jury found that the plaintiffs had suffered damage to the extent of £20 each, and assessed the damage accordingly.Court of Appeal
Lord Esher MR, Lopes LJ and Rigby LJ held that the action was maintainable against the district delegate.House of Lords
The House of Lords held that even though there was a malicious motive, this could not render the conduct unlawful, because the effect actually complained of (not rehiring) was in itself entirely lawful.In the course of his judgment Lord Davey pointed out an ‘employer may refuse to employ [an individual] for the most mistaken, capricious, malicious or morally reprehensible motives that can be conceived, but the workman has no right of action against him.’
Cave J said,
Significance
Allen v Flood has come under criticism in some quarters. In another leading tortTort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
case in the context of union strike action
Strike action
Strike action, also called labour strike, on strike, greve , or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes became important during the industrial revolution, when mass labour became...
, Rookes v Barnard, Lord Devlin expressed disapproval. However Allen v. Flood was approved by the House of Lords in the recent case of OBG v Allan.