Important Decision

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 90, 6 December 1912, Page 7

Important Decision

TRADFS UNIONS AND LIBEL. .UMU::v, PROM PROSECUTION. LONDON, November 18. ■fflft House of Lords has decided that Vacher and Son, printers, are unable to sue Dhe London Society of Compositors for libel during a trade dispute. HIGHLY-PRIVILEGED BODIES, In this case the question was whether a trade union could be sued for libel since the Trade Disputes Act, 190G, came into force. The point arose on an appeal by the London Society of Compositors and others, who were defendants in an action pending, brought against them by a firm of printers, Messrs. Vacher and Son, Limited. The plaintiffs brought the action against the society and T. Naylor and A. E. Holmes, two of t'he officials, to recover damages for alleged conspiracy to libel the plaintiffs and to cause thpm damage by trie publication of false and malicious statements, and, further, damages for libel contained in a letter written and published in pursuance of the conspiracy to certain firms and political bodies for the purpose of preventing those firms and bodies giving orders for printing to the plaintiffs. The defendants applied to the Master to have the trade union struck out of the case, and he granted the application.

Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, in giving judgment in the Court of Appeal in April last, said: "Section 4, subsection 1, of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, is as follows: (1) An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained by any court."

"The general words of this sub-sec-tion seem prima facie to relieve trade unions, and whether of workmen or masters and any members or officials thereof, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union, in respect of torte alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union from the common law liability to be sued for torts. The sub-section does not provide a defence which mny be pleaded, but provides that no such action shall be entertained by any court." "The 'Fair List' (trade list issued by the defendants) plainly relates to matters affecting trade unions and workmen as such, and I cannot doubt but that this is an action which cannot be entertained in any court." Lord Justice Farwell, who dissented from the majority, and thought the action should go to trial, said the defendants admitted that they wrongfully conspired together to publish libels of and concerning the plaintiffs, and of and concerning them in the way of their business, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the defendants and each of them falsely and maliciously published the libels thus set' out. Not all lawful acts were open to a trade union. Their functions were strictly limited. For example, it was no part of the function of a trade union to print and publish a newspaper; but if it did. what reason was there for granting it immunity for any libels that it might think fit to print?—libelling, for instance, at an election or at any time some politician whom the union desired to punish or to terrorise, or some employer * whose business they wished to injure, and continuing such libels indefinitely.—"Dominion."