Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Intentional Economic Torts Notes

Law Notes > Aspects Of Obligations Notes

This is an extract of our Intentional Economic Torts document, which we sell as part of our Aspects Of Obligations Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Aspects Of Obligations Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

INTENTIONAL ECONOMIC TORTS
THE 'SOLE DEFENDANT' ECONOMIC TORTS:

Lord
Sumption & Lloyd Jones JSC BTA Bank v Krapunov 18 recognise that econ torts are major exception to rule that no duty in tort avoid causing econ loss


rule exists to allow competitive business - law must be careful when identifying point where such conduct
'transgresses legitimate bounds' - a task of 'exceptional delicacy'


Nev er been that prominent & not unified - eclipsed by 'upstart cousin' (O'Sullivan) Hedley Byrne


but recent resurgence - new role in resolving boundaries of commercial ethics


origi ns in old-fashioned labour law

The

2 torts:
i)
Inte ntionally inducing/procuring breach of contract - Lumley v Gye


ope ra singer induced to breach contract with L to sing at G theatre instead ii)
Inte ntionally causing loss by unlawful means - Allen v Flood


unio n officials said iron workers would stop working if ship-rites re-engaged - ER bowed to pressure so stopped work


no tort committed - no contract breached & no unlawful means - emphasised doing something with bad motive not a tort - no doctrine of rights etc


origi ns = Tarleton v M'Gawley 1790 captain of ship fired canon at another boat every time tried go to shore to trade - unlawful! (intimidation)

Duri ng 20C confusion coz courts tried unify the 2 as a single 'innominate tort' - muddled their requirements & expanded remit

relie d on circular reasoning to treat Lumley as involving unlawful means - only unlawful coz inducing breach!

Lum ley extended to cover 'interference' with contract

e.g
Middlebrook Mushrooms v TGWU protest urging consumers not buy M products by TU - no breach/
unlawfulness - overturned by CA


also expanded liability from 'intention' to include mere 'foreseeability' - too far
Page 1 of 18 •

e.g
Millar v Bassey - B pulled out of record deal causing co. break contracts with musos - they sued her
& won in CA! Obvs she didn't intend cause them loss/breach etc


Wei r was v critical - upsetting doctrine of privity etc


Rem ember, Eng has no doctrine of abuse of rights - contrast US decision (Tuttle v Buck) - there banker opened barbershop with aim of bankrupting the owner - held tortious - wouldn't be in England!

in
OBG v Allan 07 HL clarified & uncoupled the 2 torts - 3 conjoined appeals

OBG
: Ds appointed receivers of a floating charge which turned out be invalid - but in gf took control of C's assets - argued unlawful means - no - nothing unlawful & no breach contract


Mai nstream Properties v Young: EEs (in breach of employ contract) diverted business opportunity to a co. they ran - D financed transaction - said he didn't believe would = breach - argued inducing breach
- HL said no coz no intention procure breach (+ no UM) - overruled Millar!


Not e also relevant they approached him & not other way round


Dou glas v Hello no.3: OK mag exclusive contract for D & Zeta Jones wedding - Hello published pics surreptitiously taken - argued unlawful means but said wasn't - not much discussion i)

IND
UCING BREACH OF CONTRACT

Ele ments (largely) clarified by OBG but older cases also useful - HL confirmed is tort of secondary liability

Tho mas v Deakin said requirements = direct persuasion/procurement/inducement applied by TP to contract-breaker, with knowledge of contract & intention of bringing about its breach

a)

Ind ucement/Procurement

• orthodox view = direct persuasion - where indirect -> unlawful means

• Lord Hoffman OBG suggested test = did D's acts of encouragement/threat/persuasion have sufficient causal link with breach to attract accessory liability?

• seems broader - may cause confusion - Carty

• Weir considered 'persuasion' key - seems be what court in OBG thought too mere interference no!

• court rejected indirect intervention & prevention of performance (there look at
UM)

• Mere advice insufficient - Lewis v Yeeles

• can be difficult line draw - Neil LJ in Mushrooms noted could infringe Art 10 if go too far

• Hart & Honoré say inducement about making a given course of action more desirable in eyes of another than otherwise would've been
Page 2 of 18 • Mummery LJ in Lewis v Yeeles CA said about persuading/causing act in a way otherwise wouldn't have done

• The 'inconsistent transaction fallacy'/facilitating breach = suggested enough by Jenkins LJ in Thomson v Deakin

• took support from BMTA v Salvadori - D bought car from C's co-contractor knowing this breached obligation not to sell within year - held liable - mere inconsistency/facilitation

• approved in Rickless v United Artists

• applied in Lictor Anstalt v Mir Steel 11 - judge thought arguable - declined strike out

• under contract A not allowed sell L property, went bust & sold to M

• note GWK & ARM v Dunlop Rubber 26 D put their tyres on GWK car placed them passively in breach with ARM - held liable - criticised in OBG Hoffman said no active procurement, suggested UM instead

• comes from 'interference' confusion

• note Union Traffic v TGWU CA said picketing could = procurement =
encouraging others breach contract

• One Money Mail v Ria 15 CA W approached R, yet R nonetheless liable for inducing breach - R knew of the exclusivity clause in the contract thus knew would be breached - more than 'active steps'

• Carty: BMTA weak authority coz appeared be organised attack on C - seems be actual inducement

• Hart & Honoré say D's conduct needs be at least 1 of influencing factors in
C's decision breach

• contrast Batts Combe Quarry v Ford - mere acceptance of gift not procuring

• There is an argument that this line of cases 'impliedly' overruled by OBG but not mentioned

• Meretz Investments v ACP Toulson LJ seems deny liability for inconsistent transactions - D's conduct must have operated 'on the will' of contracting party

• Some uncertainty coz of overlap with Equity- inconsistent dealing etc - Carty says unhelpful

• O'Sullivan seems distinguish 'knowingly making an inconsistent dealing' entirely consistent with OBG!

• Lord Macnauhten (Allen v Flood) - D must be person who 'pulls the strings'

• Carty says inconsistent transactions shouldn't be tortious per se - I agree!
b)

Kn

owledge/Intention

• must know of existence of contract and intend cause breach of that i) Knowledge

• requirement makes sense coz about protecting contractual interests

• Mainstream Properties v Young subjective knowledge - honest doubt as to whether contract/clause exists enough to avoid liability - can't just say must have been obvs - constructive knowledge insufficient

• but Hoffman endorsed Emerald Construction v Lowthian so reckless indifference does suffice (subjective) i.e deliberately ignoring/wilfully turning blind eye - as opposed to mere neg

• Deakin & Randall say this definition may create undesirable evidential difficulty for C
ii) Intention to induce breach
Page 3 of 18 • clear from OBG don't need intend cause loss & foreseeable breach/inevitable insufficient

• Meretz Investments v ACP considered that their reliance on legal advice meant they were entitled to do as they did

• but arguably the key thing instead should be whether they genuinely believed no breach

• unclear whether advised as to 'breach' specifically c)

Ca

usation of Breach of Contract

• if no contract then fails/no breach

• breach of restrictive covenant counts - Reckless v United Artists

• C must show willing & able perform - Long v Smithson

• if C's contract void/voidable then no tort - Proform Sports v Proactive
Sports

• also not tortious persuade party terminate the contract lawfully
Da

d)
mage:

• Must be more than nominal damage - Rookes v Barnard

• may be inferred if must inflict damage on ordinary course of business Goldsoll v Goldman - usually lost profits

• BMTA v Salvadori - expenses incurred in investigating D's organised undermining of C recoverable coz 'directly attributable'

• The Nodeshda Krupskaya - cost of substituting vessel recovered

• Noxfoldia v NGA - all intended damage & non-remote consequences recoverable

• here, as result of strike, had to make redundancies - redundancy payments recoverable

• Pratt v BMA - suggests injury to feelings recoverable once pecuniary loss shown

• following Lonrho v Fayed (conspiracy) injury to reputation unlikely

• Note: query - does Lumley extend beyond breach of contract to other breaches? e.g statute? Traditionally yes (Clerk & Lindsell)

• OBG Lord Nicholls left this q open - could apply to stat duties, equitable obligations

• Note: measure of liability under Lumley not restricted to quantum of damages for breach of contract (suggested in Said v Butt/Lumley)
e)

Def ence of justification:

• In limited circs, D may be able argue conduct justified - must have been carrying out a 'legal, social or moral duty' - De Jetley Marks v Greenwood,
Glamorgan Coal v SWMF

• not just about saying acted in gf but is flexible - Slade J Greig v Insole

• Romer LJ Glamorgan said have regard to nature of contract, position of parties, ground for breach, means of procurement, relation of procurer to breacher & aim of procurer

• Carty says is about D being able to point to an interest outweighing C's 'equal or superior right'
Page 4 of 18 • Hill v First Finance - developer struggling with mortgage - made settlement with bank - bank would take over on condition architect replaced - architect sued bank but held justified coz equal/superior right

• what about when your contract entered into later? Gardner says no defence need temporal priority

• Swiss Bank v Lloyds says justifiable

• Carty: suggests things like protecting health/safety would suffice

• Also seems like public interest/policy can provide defence

• Stott v Gamble film banned - justified the breach between C & theatre

• Brimelow v Casson TU induced manager of theatre break contract with
Chorus Girls - being treated badly & resorting to 'immorality' justified

• seems involve balancing of interests - rejected by HC Aus - need superior right
(Zhu v NSW)

• Reed v Operative emphasised that even if legit justification, must genuinely have relied on that

• Meretz Investments case relevant here too - spoke of 'entitlement to do as they did'

• if that suffices for intention then could mistakenly believe you have justification & not be liable - Bagshaw & McBride

• O'Sullivan suggests defence would probs apply to pro advice save where intentions bad (Carty agrees)

• Howarth says should abolish defence - too vague

• but says could replace with broader 'fair just & reasonable' assessment - just as uncertain ii)

INT
ENTIONALLY CAUSING LOSS BY UM

the
'unlawful means tort' (UM)

OBG
clarified it is distinct from Lumley & is a tort of primary liability

req uires D use unlawful means against X to cause C to suffer loss (3 party)

Lord
Lindley Quinn v Leathem said joy of this tort = C can allege wrong done to others reaches him

Hoff man OBG said UM indifferent to the nature of interest damaged

Req uirements: (Carty)/OBG

a)

Int

ention:

• must be intention to cause loss - predominant purpose must be injure C rather than pursue own advantage (Dillon LJ Lonrho v Fayed)

• pre OBG was requirement that harm be 'targeted' or 'aimed at' C - causing C
harm needed be specific object of the conduct (Allen/Lonrho)

• but Hoffman abandoned it - placed too much strain on intention - though clearly require strong causal connection - he prefers control scope with narrower interp of 'unlawful means'
Page 5 of 18 • seemed suggest intention same for this & procuring breach thus Carty explains that requisite intention will be found if 'desired end or the means of achieving a desired end' = intentional

• Carty suggests this significantly widens scope of liability

• Lord Nicholls OBG gave conflicting messages - on one hand appeared agree with Hoffman but also suggested intention for UM must be in 'deliberate'
sense of causing harm

• Total Network Lord Neuberger said fine line between intending make profit at C's expense & intending harm - this is distcintion courts have traditionally sought make

• B HL in OBG didn't spend much time on it so hopefully haven't entirely changed it f)

Unl

awful means:

• There was a 4:1 split on this point in OBG - Hoffman v Nicholls

• Lord Hoffman (majority) approach - UM element as narrow/restricted

• Starting point: actionable civil wrongs

• appeared also accept breach of contract - following Rookes v Barnard, Carty says yes - though O'Sullivan says unclear

• but also narrowed it further - actionable wrongs must be of a type that harm C
because they interfere with X's freedom to deal with C

• Carty says this means X must be someone C has an economic interest in!

• Hoffman approved of RCA Corp v Pollard - R exclusive right exploit Elvis records - P selling bootlegging recordings (crim) - held no UM claim - nothing
P did interfered with R freedom deal with Elvis

• but this narrow definition qualified coz Hoffman said UM tort can still succeed even if wrong wouldn't have been actable against X coz X suffered no loss e.g Lonrho v Fayed

• note procuring/inducing breach of contract can = unlawful means - common in industrial action

• e.g if TU induced EEs of C's supplier to breach their contracts, as way of getting at C

• Lord Nicholls (minority) approach - sees UM as much broader

• includes common law torts, stat torts, crimes, breach of contract, breaches of trust/eq obligations, breaches of confidence etc

• said CL should embrace 'all acts a D is not permitted to do whether by civ or crim law'

• said surprising/odd if C not protected against use of crime intended harm him

• ofc not all crim offences actionable in tort

• support from Lord Devlin Rookes v Barnard

• Also differed on defining role of X - said tort should provide remedy where C
harmed through 'instrumentalism of a 3P' - much broader than Hoffman seems just need a 'causal link'

• thus take 'speeding courier' e.g - D owns pizza company - tells drivers to speed so they run C's pizza delivery co. out of business - on Nicholls view = UM tort but not on Hoffman's - drivers (X) not dealing with C!

• Lord Walker critical of Nicholls approach in OBG but appeared apply tin
Total Network!
c)

Ha rm/loss
Page 6 of 18

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Aspects Of Obligations Notes.