Express Newspapers Ltd v McShane
Whether industrial action is in furtherance of a trade dispute depends on the honest belief of the person taking it that it may help one of the parties, not on whether it is objectively likely to do so.
Facts
During a dispute between provincial newspaper owners and the National Union of Journalists, the union called on journalists working for national newspapers, including the Daily Express, to stop using copy supplied by the Press Association, a news agency, in order to put pressure on the provincial newspapers. Express Newspapers sought an injunction to restrain the union, arguing that the action was not in furtherance of the trade dispute, because it was not reasonably capable of helping the union to win it.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the union's action was protected. Lord Diplock said that the test of whether an act was done in furtherance of a trade dispute was a subjective one, depending on whether the person doing the act honestly believed that it might help one of the parties to the dispute to achieve its objectives. It was not for the court to decide whether the action was likely to be effective. The decision, together with others, led Parliament to restrict secondary action in the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1990.
Related cases on trade unions and industrial action
- ASLEF v United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 34
- British Airways plc v Unite the Union (No 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 669, [2010] ICR 1316
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP Case C-438/05, [2007] ECR I-10779
- Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley [2021] UKSC 47
- Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet Case C-341/05, [2007] ECR I-11767
- Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Garner [1984] Ch 37
- Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829, [2010] ICR 173
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
