Article

Industrial action, duress and the seafarers’ wearfare fund

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. |1979| Q.B. at 719. (However, in the immediate case, the plaintiffs lost the right to avoid by conduct amounting to affirmation) See also Lord Scarman inPao On v
  • Ibid
  • North
  • Ocean
  • Co
  • Ltd
Lord Hodson inRookes v. Barnard, supra note 5 at 1203, and Lord Denning inHadmor Productions Ltd
  • See
1004, 1010, approved by Lord Diplock himself inHadmor Prodactions Ltd. v. Hamilton, supra note 37
  • See Lord
  • M R B C V Inb
  • W L R Hearn
Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc
  • Ibid
Supra note 8Universe Tankships of Monrovia Inc. v. I.T.F. [1982] 2 W.L.R. 803 (H.L.) [198l] l.C.R. 129 (CA.). at 831 C-D and Lord Brandonibid
  • See Lord Scarmanibid
aggrieved” party would forfeit the right to avoid:supra note 23. at 719. (However, in the immediate case, the plaintiffs lost the right to avoid by conduct amounting to affirmation) See also Lord Scarman inPao On v
  • However
A. s.30 for the definition of “collective agreement” and s.29 for potential contents of an agreement
  • T U L R See
Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers
  • Seeford Motor
  • Co
Flood [1898] A.C.1;Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co
  • Allen V See
Universe Tankships of Monrovia
  • Lord Crossibid
supra note 5, andHadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton, supra note 32. An appeal from the latter decision was later allowed by the House of Lords - [1982] 2 W.L.R. 322. See also Lord Diplock in theUniverse case
  • Rookes V See
  • Barnard
Per Lord Diplocksupra note 8 at 817H - 818 A,per Lord Cross; 820 H - 822 B
  • Ibid
Reynolds (1731) 2 Stra. 915;T. D. Keegan Ltd. v. Palmer |1961| 2 Lloyd’s Rep
  • Astley V
] 1 W.L.R. 1004, 1010, approved by Lord Diplock himself inHadmor Prodactions Ltd. v. Hamilton, supra note 37 [1982] 2 W
  • M R See Lord Denning
  • B C V Inb
  • Hearn
), inserted by the Employment Protection Act 1975 Sched. 16 Part III Para. 6, imposed certain procedural requirements on the granting of interlocutory injunctions in industrial action cases because the “balance of probabilities” test for the granting of such injunctions generally
  • Quinn V See