The plaintiff was a trade association whose policy was to enforce the fixing of prices of motor cars, at a time when the demand for cars greatly exceeded the supply, so that there were large profits to be made by anyone who could acquire a new car free of any obligation to resell it at the manufacturer’s price. The plaintiff established that the defendants had sought to attack the plaintiff’s policy by conspiracy to breach the contracts entered into by purchasers of new cars, prohibiting resale within twelve months.
Held: Time spent in detecting and countering a conspiracy can be included in a claim for damages if there is also other pecuniary loss.
Roxborough J said: ‘But Lord Macnaghten preferred the word ‘interference’ for his statement of the doctrine, and this seems to me to predicate active association of some kind with the breach. But, in my judgment, any active step taken by a defendant having knowledge of the covenant is enough. If this be so, a defendant by agreeing to buy, paying for and taking delivery of a motor-car known by him to be on offer in breach of covenant, takes active steps by which he facilitates a breach of covenant.’
As to the plaintiff’s request for an inquiry as to damages, Roxborough J said: ‘To resist such a counter-attack (i.e., by the defendants against the plaintiffs’ pricing policy) and also counter-attacks from various other directions, the plaintiffs maintain, and must maintain, a large investigation department, and the money actually expended in unravelling and detecting the unlawful machinations of the defendants which have been proved in this case before any proceedings could be taken must have been considerable. I can see no reason for not treating the expenses so incurred which could not be recovered as part of the costs of the action as directly attributable to their tort or torts. That these expenses cannot be precisely quantified is true, but it is also immaterial. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have proved the damage which is essential to the tort of conspiracy, and they are entitled to an inquiry accordingly.’
Judges:
Roxborough J
Citations:
[1949] Ch 556
Cited by:
Cited – Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para-Protect Europe Ltd and Others ChD 4-Mar-2002
The claimants suspected the defendants of wrongfully using their confidential information. Their staff made an initial investigation. They obtained a search and seizure order; and the material seized was examined by the staff. A Tomlin Order was . .
Cited – Phonographic Performance Ltd v Reader ChD 22-Mar-2005
The claimant had in the past obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant broadcasting without their licence musical works belonging to their members at his nightclub. The defendant had obtained a licence, but had not renewed it. The claimants in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Damages
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.246217
