Quinn v Leathem

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeH. L.
Judgment Date05 August 1901
Judgment citation (vLex)[1901] UKHL J0805-1
Date05 August 1901
CourtHouse of Lords
Quinn
and
Leathem.

[1901] UKHL J0805-1

House of Lords

1

After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 14th, Friday the 17th, and Monday the 20th days of May last, as on Tuesday the 11th and Thursday the 13th days of June last, upon the amended Petition and Appeal of Joseph Quinn, residing at Durham Street, Belfast, in the county of Antrim, Ireland, butcher, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, of the 2d of May 1899, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied, or altered, and that the Petitioner might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal, or 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 Henry Leathem, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; And due consideration being had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

2

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of Her late; Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, of the 2d day of May 1899, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
349 cases
  • Sorrell v Smith
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 15 May 1925
    ...was for an injunction only. Mr. Justice Russell, in a careful judgment, expressed the opinion that the ease of ( Quinn v. Leathem L.R. 1901, A.C. 495) had decided that a combination of two or more to induce by threats a man's customers not to deal with him was, if damage resulted, actionabl......
  • Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation Bhd v Glove Seal Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • Supreme Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Nam Tai Electronics Inc. Appellant v 1. David Haque 2. Tele-art Inc. ((in Liquidation)) Respondents
    • British Virgin Islands
    • Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands)
    • 26 March 2001
    ...for the Appellant as was the case in the Bolkiah case and in this context referred to Lord Halsbury's two observations in Quinn v Leathem 1901 AC 495 at page 15 Counsel referred to the fact that it was the Appellant who appointed the Liquidator in the voluntary winding up and the Appellant ......
  • JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 30 May 2003
    ...Q.B.D. 114, dicta of Brett, M.R. considered. (32) Pizzey v. Ford Motor Co. Ltd., [1994] P.I.Q.R. P15, considered. (33) Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495; (1901), 85 L.T. 289, dicta of Lord Halsbury, L.C. considered. (34) R. v. Ataou, [1988] Q.B. 798; [1988] 2 All E.R. 321, referred to. (35)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Does The Left Hand Know What The Right Hand Is Doing?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 31 May 2011
    ...business "through the instrumentality of a third party": The rationale of the tort was described by Lord Lindley in Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495, A person's liberty or right to deal with others is nugatory, unless they are at liberty to deal with him if they choose to do so. Any interfere......
28 books & journal articles
  • RESTRAINING A CALL ON A PERFORMANCE BOND: SHOULD ‘FRAUD OR UNCONSCIONABILITY’ BE THE NEW ORTHODOXY?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...[1996] QB 84, at 99. 74 Supra, n 8. CfThai Kenaf Co Ltd v Keck Seng (S) Pte Ltd[1993] 2 SLR 92, at 109—11. 75 As noted in Quinn v Leathem[1901] AC 495, at 510, ‘[a] violation of a legal right committed knowingly is a cause of action, and … it is a violation of a legal right to interfere wit......
  • Labor Unions: Saviors or Scourges?
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 41-1, January 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...with the Association of Engineering and 96 208 U.S. 274, 293–96 (1908). 97 Trade Disputes Act § 1. 98 See, e.g. , Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.) 542–43 (appeal taken from N. Ir.). 99 Trade Disputes Act § 3. 100 [1905] A.C. 211 (H.L.) (appeal taken from Eng.). 101 Id. at 244. 102 S......
  • Analysing Judgments: Reasoning, Argument and Legal Logic
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill How Judges Decide Cases: Reading, Writing and Analysing Judgments. 2nd Edition Contents
    • 29 August 2018
    ...all the apparatus of authority, the judge nearly always has some degree of choice. 29 28 Lord Halsbury LC, Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495 at 506. 29 Lord Wright, Legal Essays and Addresses (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1939) at p 25. The use of a system of binding precedent is more......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill How Judges Decide Cases: Reading, Writing and Analysing Judgments. 2nd Edition Contents
    • 29 August 2018
    ...ICR 27, EAT 117 Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes [1959] AC 743, [1959] 2 WLR 510, [1959] 2 All ER 38, HL 175–176 Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495, 65 JP 708, 70 LJPC 76, HL 168 R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, [2018] AC 61, [2017] 2 WLR 583, [2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT