|The Physical Object|
|Number of Pages||29|
Excerpt from Allen V. Flood: Le Boycottage, les Listes Noires Et les Autres Instruments de Contrainte Syndicale Devant la Loi Civile; Les Deux Courants Actuels de Jurisprudence; Les Origines du Courant Libéral Mais c'est surtout pendant ces quatre ou cinq dernieres années que le jeu naturel de la litigation ainsi : Jean Fouilland. Allen v Flood AC 1 is a leading case in English tort law and UK labour law on intentionally inflicted economic on(s):  AC 1. "Allen v. Flood" is an article from Harvard Law Review, Volume View more articles from Harvard Law Review. View this article on JSTOR. Lords in the case of Allen v. Flood, has been received in this counitry as well as in England with a degree of interest that it undoubtedly deserves. The case has been recently discussed in so many publications that it is.
Allen v Flood. Quick Reference () In the late Victorian period there was disagreement within the judiciary about what role tort law should play in cases where economic harm was deliberately inflicted by . The Authority of Allen v. Flood is an article from Michigan Law Review, Volume 1. View more articles from Michigan Law this article on Allen was a trade union representative for the other employees on the ship and approached the employers, telling them that if they did not discharge Flood and Walter, the other employees would strike. The employers consequently discharged Flood and Walter and refused to employ them again, where they otherwise would. Allen v Flood: HL The defendant, on behalf of a group of ironworkers, persuaded their employers in Milwall to stop employing the plaintiff shipwrights. There was no breach of contract. The plaintiffs alleged that this conduct gave rise to liability in tort on the ground that the defendant had maliciously induced the employers to act as.
Definition of Allen V. Flood (A. C. 1). To induce a party, by means which are not unlawful, lawfully to terminate a contract with another does ntft give such other a cause of action, and the fact that the party so inducing is actuated by malice is immaterial. in Allen v. Flood could be raised.4 And, like the original question, it puzzled the judges and Lords very much to answer. Cave, J. answers, Yes: "Ex concessis, the butler has been interfered with in earning his livelihood and has lost his situation, and the circumstances shew no just cause or ex-. Re-affirming the abstentionist philosophy of Allen v Flood Lord Hoffmann and Nicholls and Baroness Hale in part relied upon the first edition of An Analysis of the Economic Torts, Lord Hoffmann. Since the decision of Allen v Flood, it seems that in those cases where the state of mind of the defendant is material, it is not malice in the popular sense of personal ill will that is the decisive element, but wilful or reckless disregard of truth in some form”.Allen v flood has been criticised both for an unduly restrictive approach to recovery of intentional harm, and for a lack of clarity in the idea of malice.