Allen v Flood and Another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1897 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1897] UKHL J1214-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 14 December 1897 |
[1897] UKHL J1214-1
House of Lords
Whereas Counsel were heard as well on Tuesday the 10th as Thursday the 12th, Monday the l6th, and Tuesday the 17th days of December 1895, upon the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Francis Allen, of 19, Birchfield Street, East India Dock Road, Middlesex, the London Delegate of the United Society of Boiler Makers and Iron Ship Builders, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 4th of April, 1895, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, and that so much of the Judgment entered at the trial of the Cause before the Honourable Mr. Justice Kennedy and a Common Jury in Middlesex as was a Judgment against the Petitioner might be set aside and Judgment entered for the Petitioner or a new trial had, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of William Cridge Flood and Walter Taylor, lodged in answer to the said Appeal: And whereas by an Order of this House of the 15th day of December 1896, it was Ordered that the said Appeal be re-argued on the 25th day of March 1897, and that the Judges do then attend; And whereas the said Appeal was accordingly heard on re-argument as well on Thursday the 25th, Friday the 26th, Monday the 29th, and Tuesday the 30th days of March last, as Thursday the 1st, and Friday the 2nd days of April last, in presence of the Judges; and a Question of Law was put to the Judges, who desired time to consider the same: And whereas on Thursday, the 3rd day of June last, the Judges delivered their Opinions on the said Question of Law to them proposed; And due consideration being had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Air Canada and Others (Third Parties/ Appellants) Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Others (Fourth Parties/Appellants) Korean Air Lines Company Ltd and Others (Non-Parties/Appellants) v Air New Zealand Ltd and Others Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others
...a claimant to recover economic loss resulting from certain business practices deemed to be unlawful. In the seminal case of Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1, the House of Lords held, by a majority of six to three, that it was not unlawful deliberately to harm a third party even where the defendant......
-
Sorrell v Smith
... ... Gye was correctly decided; (2) that the case of Allen v. Flood depended upon the fact that the defendant there acted alone and neither uttered nor ... Personally, I should prefer in reaching the same goal to tread another path and to say that a combination having such a purpose was not illegal without malice, and that ... ...
-
South Wales Miners' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Company
... ... But in Allen v. Flood F6 Lords Macnaghten, Herschell, and Shand reserved their opinions as to whether Lumley ... act, and such an act as may as a natural and probable consequence of it produce injury to another, and which in the particular case does produce such an injury, an action on the case will lie.” ... ...
-
David Wong Ken and Others v National Investment Bank Jamaica Ltd
...by the reasons of practicality which are said to justify the corresponding rule that motive is irrelevant in most torts: see Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1 at 118-119, 153 , [1895-9] All ER Rep 52 at 78, 93. But neither expedience nor practicality is a good ground for confining the tort of misfe......
-
A Framework Emerges - Recent Developments In The Law Of Intentional Economic Torts
...discussion, see Philip H Osborne, The Law of Torts, 4th ed (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2011) at 315. 2 [2007] UKHL 21 [OBG Limited]. 3 [1898] AC 1 (HL) 4 AI Enterprises and Schelew v Bram Enterprises and Jamb Enterprises, 2012 NBCA 22 at para 25. 5 Peter Burns and Joost Brom, Economic Interes......
-
Misfeasance in public office: a very peculiar tort.
...See Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895] AC 587, 594 (Lord Halsbury LC), 598-9 (Lord Ashbourne), 601 (Lord Macnaghten); Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1, 92 (Lord Watson), 152-3 (Lord Macnaghten); McKernan v Fraser (1931) 46 CLR 343, 380 (Evatt J); Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch ......
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...at King's College London, London (20 March 2019). 99 William J Brennan Jr, “In Defense of Dissents” (1986) 37 Hastings LJ 427 at 430. 100 [1898] AC 1. 101 An engaging discussion of the judicial personalities involved can be found in Robert F V Heuston, “Legal Prosopography” (1986) 102 LQR 9......
-
Table of cases
...24 CCLT (2d) 297, 9 CCEL (2d) 56 (Ont Gen Div) ................................................................... 296 Allen v Flood, [1898] AC 1, 77 LT 717 (HL) ................................ 344–46, 347, 357 Alleslev-Krofchak v Valcom Ltd, [2010] OJ No 3548, 2010 ONCA 557............. 3......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...710 at 724. See Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, supra n 44 at para 23—38. 86 Stratford v Lindley [1965] AC 269 at 283—84. See also Allen v Flood[1898] AC 1 at 129; Hodges v Webb[1920] 2 Ch 70 at 89; Rookes v Barnard, ibid at 1187—88, 1200—01, 1207—08. 87 News Group Newspapers Ltd v Society of Gr......