Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Rly Servants
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Taff_Vale_Rly_Co_v_Amalgamated_Society_of_Rly_Servants an entity of type: WikicatLordLindleyCases
Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] UKHL 1, commonly known as the Taff Vale case, is a formative case in UK labour law. It held that, at common law, unions could be liable for loss of profits to employers that were caused by taking strike action. The labour movement reacted to Taff Vale with outrage; the case gave impetus to the establishment of the UK Labour Party and was soon reversed by the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It was reversed at common law in Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942].
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Rly Servants
rdf:langString
Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
xsd:integer
1685528
xsd:integer
1114567343
rdf:langString
[1901] UKHL 1, [1901] AC 426
rdf:langString
House of Lords
rdf:langString
Earl of Halsbury LC, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Shand, Lord Brampton and Lord Lindley
rdf:langString
Right to strike, economic tort, conspiracy
rdf:langString
Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] UKHL 1, commonly known as the Taff Vale case, is a formative case in UK labour law. It held that, at common law, unions could be liable for loss of profits to employers that were caused by taking strike action. The labour movement reacted to Taff Vale with outrage; the case gave impetus to the establishment of the UK Labour Party and was soon reversed by the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It was reversed at common law in Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942].
xsd:date
1901-07-22
rdf:langString
[1901] 1 KB 170 and
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
26571
