Cooper v Millea and Others (No 1)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 1938 |
| Date | 11 October 1938 |
I.F.S.]
Cooper
and
Millea and Others
Dismissal caused by threat to strike by other employees - Rival trade unions - Employees who were members of one trade union refusing to work with employee who was a member of another trade union - Threatened strike a breach of contract between railway company and their employees - Threat to Strike not authorised by trade union -Interference with employment by illegal means -Right of action by dismissed employee against trade union officials for damages - Trade Dispute Act 1906 (6 Ed. 7, c. 47)...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
15 cases
-
Riordan v Butler and Others
...was entitled to claim damages. Held further that there was a "trade dispute" but this did not affect the result. Cooper v. Millea, [1938] I. R. 749, followed; White v. Riley[1921] 1 Ch. 1,distinguished. O'Byrne J. :— At the outset of my judgment I think it well that I should refer to the pa......
-
Deighan v Same Defendants
...procedure prescribed by the above Scheme should be followed. The plaintiffs, accordingly, were entitled to succeed. Cooper v. MilleaIR, [1938] I. R. 749, applied. (Maguire P.), McLoughlin and Great Southern Railways Co. and Deighan and Same Defendants - Employees of railway company - Agreem......
-
H.A. O'Neil Ltd v Unite the Union and Others
...[1901] A.C. 495 are to be understood; what was decided in Lyons v. Wilkins [1899] 1 Ch. 255; what was determined in Cooper v. Millea [1938] I.R. 749; what arguments can be mounted by reference to the decision in Becton, Dickinson and Company Limited, and that none of these issues have been......
-
Taylor v Smyth
...UNREP HIGH 10.3.1972 ROOKES V BARNARD 1964 1 AER 367 CENTRAL CANADA POTASH CO LTD V GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN 88 DLR 609 COOPER V MILLEA 1938 IR 749 RIORDAN V BUTLER 1940 IR 347 WARD V LEWIS & ORS 1955 1 AER 55 O'MAHONY V GAFFNEY 1986 IR 36 GREEN V ROZEN & ORS 1955 2 AER 797 LONRHO LTD ......
Get Started for Free