Mogul Steamship Co. v McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892)

Law of Torts · The Two Maxims

Facts.

A group of shipowners combined to keep the China tea trade to themselves, offering rebates to shippers who dealt exclusively with them and undercutting the plaintiff company until it was driven from the trade.

Issue.

Is a combination of traders liable for the loss it deliberately inflicts on a rival, where the means used are lawful?

Held.

No. The defendants’ object was to advance their own trade, not to injure the plaintiff for its own sake, and the means employed were lawful. The loss was damnum sine injuria.

Why it matters.

It fixes the boundary of the tort of conspiracy: what matters is the predominant purpose. Compare Quinn v Leathem, where the purpose was to injure and liability followed.

📄 Full Law of Torts notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Law of Torts topics