Question

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

• A. Walsby v. Anley
• B. Moghul Steamship Company v. Mc. Gregor Gow and Company
• C. Allen v. Flood
• D. Quinn v. Leathem

Hint:

For the tort of conspiracy, remember the distinction made by the cases: In \textit{Mogul Steamship}, the purpose was legitimate self-interest. In \textit{Quinn v. Leathem}, the purpose was to injure. The predominant purpose is the key factor in determining liability for conspiracy.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks to identify the landmark English case that clearly established the tort of civil conspiracy, particularly the "conspiracy to injure."
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The tort of conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more persons to cause injury to another, which then results in actual damage. The law evolved through a series of key House of Lords cases:
- Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892): In this case, a group of shipping companies combined to drive a rival out of business by offering lower prices. The House of Lords held this was not an unlawful conspiracy because their primary object was to protect and expand their own trade, not to injure the plaintiff. It established that a combination using lawful means for a legitimate purpose is not actionable.
- Allen v. Flood (1898): This case established that a single individual, acting lawfully, does not commit a tort by inducing an employer not to hire someone, even if the motive is malicious.
- Quinn v. Leathem (1901): This is the pivotal case. Here, trade union officials threatened a butcher with a strike unless he dismissed his non-union employees. The butcher suffered losses and sued. The House of Lords held the officials liable for conspiracy. They distinguished \textit{Mogul Steamship} by finding that the predominant purpose of the combination was not to advance their own legitimate interests, but to deliberately injure the butcher. This case firmly established that a combination of persons to willfully injure a person in their trade is an actionable tort if it results in damage. It is considered the classic enunciation of the doctrine.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The doctrine of civil conspiracy was enunciated by the House of Lords in Quinn v. Leathem.

Answer 2

The question asks which House of Lords case enunciated the doctrine of civil conspiracy. Let's examine each option.

1. Walsby v. Anley: This is not a House of Lords case establishing the tort of civil conspiracy; it does not correspond to the doctrine described in the question.
2. Moghul Steamship Company v. Mc. Gregor Gow and Company: Here, a group of shipping companies combined to undercut a competitor through lawful price competition. The House of Lords held this combination was not actionable because its predominant purpose was to legitimately advance the defendants' own trade, not to injure the plaintiff. This case establishes a limit on the tort (lawful means for a legitimate purpose is not conspiracy) rather than enunciating the doctrine itself.
3. Allen v. Flood: This case held that a single individual acting lawfully commits no tort by inducing an employer not to continue employing someone, even out of malice. It concerns individual action, not a combination of persons, so it does not establish the doctrine of civil conspiracy, which by definition requires a combination.
4. Quinn v. Leathem: Here, trade union officials combined to threaten a boycott unless a butcher dismissed non-union workers, causing him loss. The House of Lords held the officials liable, finding their predominant purpose was to injure the butcher rather than to advance any legitimate trade interest of their own. This decision is recognised as the case that clearly enunciated and applied the tort of civil conspiracy to injure.

Since Quinn v. Leathem is the case where the House of Lords actually found liability for a combination formed predominantly to injure the plaintiff, establishing the doctrine, it is the correct answer.

Therefore, the correct answer is Quinn v. Leathem.