Sorrell v Smith ([1925] A.C. 700)
Citation:Sorrell v Smith ([1925] A.C. 700)
Rule of thumb:This case set the important test for how to lawfully carry out a boycott of a business – if there is a valid purpose behind why it is being done then this is a valid boycott. If not, it is an actionable wrong with the boycotted person entitled to damages.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘... after examining three cases formulated two propositions: (1) A combination of two or more persons wilfully to injure a man in his trade is unlawful and, if it results in damage to him, is actionable. (2) If the real purpose of the combination is, not to injure another, but to forward or defend the trade of those who enter into it, then no wrong is committed and no action will lie, although damage to another ensues’, Lord Cave, Lord Chancellor, at pages 711 and 712,‘However the origin of the rule may be explained, I take it to be clear that there are cases in which a combination of individuals to act in a certain way, resulting in deliberate damage to others, is actionable, even though the same thing, if done by a single individual without any element of combination, would not expose him to liability’, Lord Simon at 444
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.