The Mogul Steamship Company Ltd v McGregor, Gow, and Company and Others
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 11 August 1888 |
Date | 11 August 1888 |
Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Lord Coleridge, C.J. without a Jury
The Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, and Co. and others
Rex v. Berenger 3 Mau. & Sel. 67
Savile v. Roberts 1 Reymond's Rep. 374
Hutchins v. Hutchins 7 Hill's Reps. of the Supreme Court of New York, 104
Skinner v. GuntonENR 1 Wms. Saund. 269, 6th edit. 1845
Rex v. TurnerENR 13 East, 228
Keble v. Hickringill 11 Modern, p. 75
Reg. v. Druitt 10 Cox Crim. Cas. 593
Rex v. Journeymen Tailors of CambridgeENR 8 Mod. Rep. 11
Reg. v. Rowlands 17 Q. B. 686
Wensmore v. GreenbankENR Willes, 577
Lumley v. GyeENR 2 E. & B. 216
Bowen v. HallELR 6 Q. B. Div. 333
Conspiracy — Combination of shipowners — Restraint of trade
320 MARITIME LAW CASES. Q.B. Div.] Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, & Co. & others. [Q.B. Div. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Jan. 30,31, Feb, 4, and Aug. 11 1888. (Before Lord Coleridge, C.J. without a Jury.) The Mosul Steamship Company Limited v, McGregor, Gow, and Co. and others, (a) Conspiracy - Combination of shipowners - Restraint of trade- Unlawful object-Illegal means - Public policy. The defendant shipping companies and owners had combined together and formed a "conference" Or "ring," and their agents in China had issued circulars to shippers there to the effect that exporters in China who confined their shipments of goods to vessels owned by members of the " conference," should be allowed a certain rebate, pay-able half-yearly, on the freight charged. Any shipment, at any port in China, by an outside steamer, to exclude the shipper of such shipment from participating in the return during the whole six-monthly period within which such shipment should have hem. made. The plaintiffs, who were owners of vessels in the same trade, had thereby suffered damage. Held, that such combination of the defendants was not in restraint of trade; that the object of the combination was not to effect an unlawful end, and that the means used by the defendants to attain such end were not unlawful; and that, although the motive of the defendants was to exclude the plaintiffs from the trade if they could, and to do so without any consideration for the results of such exclusion to the plaintiffs, that was not enough to render the combination wrongful or malicious. Therefore, under the above circum-stances, an action for wrongful combination or conspiracy to prevent the plaintiffs carrying on their trade would not lie. Action tried by Lord Coleridge, L.J. without a jury. The plaintiffs were a shipping company, incorporated in 1883, owning shares in certain steamships, viz., the Sikh, Afghan, Pathan, and Ghaxee, trading between Chinese and Australian ports and London, and the defendants, McGregor, Gow, and Co., T. Skinner and Co., D. J. Jenkins and Co., the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, William Thomson and Co., and others, were shipping companies and owners trading in the same seas. The facts appear sufficiently from the pleadings, which were substantially as follows:-- The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, alleged that they had suffered damage by reason of the defendants, as and being owners of numerous steamers trading between ports in the Yangtue - Kiang river and London, conspiring together to prevent the plaintiffs from obtaining cargoes for steamers owned by the plaintiffs, from shipp??, to be carried from ports in the said river to London, for reward to the plaintiffs in that behalf. That the said conspiracy consisted of a combination and agreement by and amongst the defendants, as and being owners of steamers trading as aforesaid, and having, by reason of such combination and agreement, control of the homeward shipping trade, pursuant to which shippers were bribed, coerced, and induced to agree to forbear, and to forbear, from shipping cargoes by the steamers of the plaintiffs. It was alleged, in the alternative, that the said conspiracy consisted of a combination and agreement by and amongst the defendants, as and being owners of steamers as aforesaid, pursuant to which the defendants, with the intent to injure the plaintiffs, and to prevent them from obtaining cargoes for their steamers trading between the said ports, agreed to refuse, and refused, to accept cargoes from shippers, except upon the terms that the said shippers should not snip any cargoes by the steamers of the plaintiffs, and by threats of stopping' the shipment of homeward cargoes altogether, which threats they had the power and intended to carry into effect, did prevent shippers from shipping cargoes by the plaintiffs' steamers, and threatened and intended to continue so to do. The plaintiffs claimed damages, and an. injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing ' the wrongful acts above mentioned. In particulars delivered by the plaintiffs, they stated that the combination and agreement consisted of a combination and agreement by and amongst the defendants, as being a number of wealthy shipowners and shipping companies, formed and entered into for the purpose of creating a" conference " or " ring," and thereby acquiring the control of the shipping trade between China and England, and for the purpose of compelling their agents in China and Hong Kong not to load any cargoes on the plaintiffs' vessels, and for the purpose of preventing shippers and merchants from shipping by the plaintiffs' vessels, by imposing penalties on those who did so, by granting a rebate of 5 per cent. on the freight charged to such shippers as had not made any shipments for certain six-monthly periods by the plaintiffs' vessels, and generally for the purpose of boycotting and ruining the plaintiffs as shipowners, and of driving them out of the trade, thus preventing the plaintiff company from carrying on their lawful business as shipowners and carriers in the said trade. With this object the defendants had widely distributed among the China merchants circulars to the following effect: Shanghai, 10th May 1884. To those exporters who confine their shipments of (a) Reported by F. A. Crail??, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 321 Q.B. Div.] Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, & Co. & others. [Q.B. Div. tea and general cargo from China to Europe (not including the Mediterranean and Black Sea ports) to the P. and O. Steam Navigation Company, Messagerie Maritime Company, Ocean Steamship Company, McGregor, Gow, and Co., Gler, Castle, Shire, and Ben Lines. and to the steamships Unpack and Ningchow, we shall he happy to allow a rebate of 5 per cent. on the freight charged. Exporters claiming the returns will be required to sign a declaration that they have not made or been interested in any shipments of tea or general cargo to Europe (excepting the ports above named) by any other than the laid line. Shipments by the steamships Afghan, Fathan, and Ghazee, on their present voyages from Hankow, will not prejudice claims for returns. Each line to be responsible for its own returns only, which will be payable half-yearly, commencing the 80th Oct. next. Shipments by as outside steamer at any of the ports in China or Hong Kong will exclude the firm making such shipments from participation in the return daring the whole six-monthly period within which they have been made, even although its other branches may have given entire support to the above lines. The foregoing agreement on our part to be in force from the present date till the 30th April 1885. In May 1885 the defendants caused to be issued to the shippers and merchants in China another circular, as follows: Shanghai, 11th May 188S. Referring to our circular, dated the 10th May 1884, we beg to remind you that shipments for London by the steamships Pathan, Afghan, and Aberdeen, or by other non-conference steamers at any of the ports in China, or at Hong Kong, will exclude the firm making such shipments from participation in the return during the whole six-monthly period in which they have been made, even although the firm elsewhere may have given exclusive support to the conference lines. In consequence of these circulars and the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff company complained that they had been unable to obtain freights for their ships, and had been virtually driven out of the China trade. The defendants, in their defence, contended that, as matter of law, the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the defendants, and they denied any conspiracy, as alleged, or that shippers were bribed, coerced, or induced to abstain from shipping cargoes by the plaintiffs' steamers; and they alleged the real facts of the case to be that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Mogul Steamship Company Ltd v McGregor, Gow, and Company, and Others
...was maintainable. This was an appeal from a judgment of Lord Coleridge, C.J. in an action tried without a jury, reported at 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 320; 21 Q. B. Div. 544; 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 514. The plaintiffs were a shipping company incorporated in 1883, owning sherss in certain steamships,......