Intentional Economic Torts Notes

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’

Never been that prominent & not unified - eclipsed by ‘upstart cousin’ (O’Sullivan) Hedley Byrne

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

origins in old-fashioned labour law

The 2 torts:

Intentionally inducing/procuring breach of contract - Lumley v Gye

• opera singer induced to breach contract with L to sing at G theatre instead

  Intentionally causing loss by unlawful means - Allen v Flood

• union 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

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

  During 20C confusion coz courts tried unify the 2 as a single ‘innominate tort’ - muddled their requirements & expanded remit

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

  Lumley 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

  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

  Weir was v critical - upsetting doctrine of privity etc

  Remember, 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

  Mainstream 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!

  Note also relevant they approached him & not other way round

  Douglas 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

1. inducing breach of contract

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

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

1. Inducement/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

   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...

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