Roth J struck out the unlawful means tort claim, saying that, in OBG ‘the ratio of Lord Hoffmann’s determination of the elements of the tort is in para 51’ of his speech: ‘Unlawful means therefore consists of acts intended to cause loss to the claimant by interfering with the freedom of a third party in a way which is unlawful as against that third party and which is intended to cause loss to the claimant. It does not in my opinion include acts which may be unlawful against a third party but which do not affect his freedom to deal with the claimant.’ This includes a requirement that the acts affect the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant.
He continued: ‘the whole approach of Lord Hoffmann and the express opinions of Lord Walker, Baroness Hale and Lord Brown emphasised the need to confine the tort within careful limits, and support the view that the unlawful means must affect the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant.’ . . . ‘If the claimants here were correct, then given the broad interpretation of the element of intention adopted in OBG v Allen, the right to claim against Servier would cover not only all the various UK Health Authorities but also all potential generic competitors who suffered loss through their inability to supply a generic version of perindopril by reason of the 947 Patent; any private medical expenses insurer who paid higher prices for reimbursement of the cost of perindopril; and, subject to any issues of jurisdiction, all foreign health authorities and insurers in each of the various other states in Europe that were designated under the 947 Patent. Mr Turner did not shrink from such implications, and indeed urged that the court should not shrink from them either.’
Roth J
[2017] EWHC 2006 (Ch), [2017] 5 CMLR 17
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Cited by:
See Also – The Secretary of State for Health and Another v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others CA 27-Jun-2019
The Court was asked how far the EU law principle of res judicata can be relied on by the Appellants as establishing facts which they wish to prove in their defences to the damages claims brought by the Respondents. Servier submits that certain . .
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Health and Another v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others CA 12-Jul-2019
Appeal against a paragraph of an order by which the judge struck out the claim of the appellant, the Secretary of State for Health and the NHS Business Services Authority that the third respondent is liable for interfering with the NHS’s economic . .
At First Instance – Secretary of State for Health and Another v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others SC 2-Jul-2021
Economic tort of causing loss by unlawful means
The Court was asked whether the ‘dealing requirement’ is a constituent part of the tort of causing loss by unlawful means; whether a necessary element of the unlawful means tort is that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.597458