“Threat of strike action constituting intimidation is actionable tort even without actual violence”
Rookes was employed by BOAC. Three trade union officials (Barnard and others) threatened BOAC that union members would strike unless Rookes was dismissed because he had left the union. The threatened strike would have involved breach of the employees' employment contracts. BOAC yielded to the threat and dismissed Rookes, who then sued the union officials for damages.
Whether a threat to commit unlawful acts (breach of contract) against a third party, causing them to act to the claimant's detriment, constitutes the tort of intimidation.
The House of Lords held (3:2) that intimidation by threats of unlawful action is an actionable tort. The appeal was allowed and Rookes succeeded in his claim for damages against the union officials.
Lord Devlin delivered the leading judgment. He held that intimidation consisted of a threat by A to use unlawful means to compel B to injure C. The tort did not require threats of violence; threats to commit any unlawful act (including breach of contract) sufficed. The threat of strike action would have involved breach of employment contracts, which was unlawful. BOAC yielded to this threat by dismissing Rookes. The tort was complete when the threat caused damage to the claimant. This revived the tort of intimidation which had been thought limited to threats of violence. Lord Devlin distinguished this from lawful strike threats, emphasizing the unlawfulness of the threatened breach of contract was key.
This case revived the tort of intimidation in a broader form, extending beyond physical threats to threats of any unlawful action. It significantly impacted labour law by constraining trade union activity and led to legislative reform in the Trade Disputes Act 1965.
Lord Devlin discussed the limits of trade union immunity and suggested that Parliament, not courts, should decide the extent of trade dispute protections. He also commented on the three categories of exemplary damages, though this was not central to the intimidation issue.
OSCOLA Citation
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.