The Master's Indemnity–‐Variations On A Theme
| Date | 01 January 1959 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00516.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1959 |
| Author | J. A. Jolowicz |
JAN.
1969
NOTES
OF
CASES 71
The gist
of
the case is that “interests,” “purposes”
or
“
objects
”
may be lawful within the
Crofter
definition although
they cannot be translated into cash. This was emphasised by
Hodson
L.J.
The enforcement of a policy of non-discrimination
between races is, quite apart from any material
or
selfish interests,
in itself
a
legitimate purpose.
“
If
the defendants honestly believe
that
a
certain policy is desirable, and
if
they honestly believe that
it
is
the wish
of
their members that such
a
policy should prevail,
and that there should be
no
colour bar discrimination,
it
can be
said that the welfare of the members is being advanced, even
though
it
cannot be positively translated into
or
shown
to
be
reflected in detailed financial terms.”
There is clearly a world of difference between enforcing
a
policy
of non-discrimination and-the situation in Lord Maugham’s hypo-
thetical example above-an expression of a dislike of the political
views
or
the race
or
colour of an individual.
How far the principle underlying
this
case could be applied to
“political
”
strikes is not an easy question to answer. Where the
strike is directed against an employer
in
view of the character of
the work done in his undertaking
(e.g.,
refusal
on
the part of
dockers to load cargoes intended for the support of warlike action
taken by an unpopular foreign government) the situation may be
comparable. Where
on
the other hand the
‘‘
policy
”
pursued is
quite unconnected with the particular employment, as,
e.g:,
a
demonstration against some aspect of the policy of the British
Government,
it
may be considered very different. The problem of
the
political
”
strike remains as open after this decision as
it
was before.
In any event, the attitude
of
any person, lawyer
or
non-lawyer,
towards
a
decision
of
this kind, cannot fail
to
be influenced by
the nature of the “policy
’’
in question. This influence may
operate above
or
below the level of consciousness;
it
is always there.
The present writer confesses that he is in sympathy with the
policy
of
the union and out of sympathy with the action taken by
the plaintiffs. He welcomes the decision of the court, but he might
have felt differently about a similar decision rendered in favour of
trade union officials seeking to enforce rather than
to
combat a
colour bar.
It
would be sheer hypocrisy to assert the contrary.
0.
K.-F.
THE
MASTER’S INDEMNITY-VARIATIONS
ON
A
THE=
ALTHOUGH the defendants in
Harvey
v.
,O’Detl, Ltd. (Galmy
Third
Party),’
contended, with
“
an elaborate citation of authw
rities,” that they were not liable to the plaintiff, and McNair
J.
*
Per
Morris
L.J.
[1958]
1
W.L.R.
at
p.
1062.
1
[1958]
1
Q.B.
78,
it180
reported
[1958]
1
All
E.R.
667.
To continue reading
Request your trial