Attacking the Colour Bar—A Lawful Purpose
| Date | 01 January 1959 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00515.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1959 |
NOTES
OF
CASES
ATTACKING
THE
COLOUR
BAR-A
LAWFUL
PURPOSE
IN
his speech in
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed
Co.
v.
Veitch,’
Lord Wright distinguished a lawful combination from an unlawful
conspiracy by contrasting
“
the case where the object is the legiti-
mate benefit of the combiners and the case where the object is
deliberate damage without any just cause.” In the words of Lord
Simon a combination is not unlawful if the
“
real and predominant
purpose
”
of those combining is to advance their
“
lawful interests.”
The
Crofter
decision-and this is one of its cardinal features-
defined
“
lawful interests
”
in terms which went beyond
“
trade
combination,” and included such typical trade union interests as
the strengthening of collective bargaining machinery and complete
union organisation of an industry. In other words, it extended the
principle of
nlogul
Steamship
Co.
v.
McGregor
Gow
4
CO.~
from
the concerted action of traders to the concerted action of workers.
“
A combination,” however,
“
to demonstrate the power of those
combining to dictate policy
or
to prove themselves masters in
a
given situation
”
may be a conspiracy. The line which separates
lawful from unlawful action does not run between the markets of
commodities
or
services and the labour market, but between a
“
policy of interest
”
and a
“
policy of prestige.” The latter may,
as Lord Maugham said,5 include an expression of
“
a dislike of the
religious views
or
the politics
or
the race
or
the colour
”
of another
person. An actual example of “prestige policy
”
is afforded by
Huntley
v.
Thornton.”
In
Scala Ballroom (Wolverhampton), Ltd.
v.
Ratclioe and
Others,’
the plaintiffs, who were the proprietors of a dance hall,
decided and announced that they would deny admittance to
coloured people, but they did not bar coloured musicians from the
orchestra. The defendants were officials of the Musicians’ Union.
On behalf of the union they informed the plaintiffs that its
‘‘
long-
established policy
”
was
“
strongly opposed to discrimination
of
any kind, including, of course, racial discrimination
”
and that as
long as the plaintiffs continued to ban coloured persons from their
ballroom, members
of
the union would be instructed not to perform
1
[1942]
A.C.
435
at
p.
469.
2
At
p.
446.
J
[l802]
A.C.
25.
*
Pet
Lord
Simon
at
p.
445.
5
At
p.
451.
6
[1957] 1
W.L.R.
321; [1957]
1
All
E.R.
234
(see
Note
by
C.
Grunfeld,
20
7
[1958] 1
W.L.R.
1057; [1958] 3
All
E.R.
220.
M.L.R.
495).
69
To continue reading
Request your trial