Category: Torts – Other

Dyson Technology Ltd and Others v Curtis and Another: ChD 20 Sep 2010

Four Dyson companies made claims arising out of the alleged dishonest conduct of the first defendant whilst employed as Tooling Manager for various of the Dyson companies, initially in connection with Portuguese suppliers called Lismolde, and thereafter, in connection with a number of Dyson suppliers in the Far East, particularly in Malaysia. Dyson’s claims against the Second Defendant arise out of her alleged knowing receipt of monies which the Defendant alleges were the fruit of bribes, either carried out or conducted by the First Defendant as regards Lismolde, or with his knowledge and/or under his direction as regards the Far Eastern suppliers.

Judges:

David Grant HHJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3289 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.427287

Hurndell v Hurndell and Others: ChD 17 Dec 2010

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3340 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hurndell v Hozier and Another ChD 19-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Hurndell v Hozier and Another CA 12-Feb-2009
A company sought a public listing, but too many shares were held in private hands. Shares were to be transferred by the claimant, but he now denied having signed any transfer. He now appealed against rejection of his claim saying that the judge had . .

Cited by:

Principal Judgment – Hurndell v Hozier and Others ChD 18-Feb-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.427290

Foodco UK Llp (T/A Muffin Break) and Others v Henry Boot Developments Ltd: ChD 3 Mar 2010

The claimants had been persuaded to take up leases on a service area constructed by the defendants. They said that the publicity materials had wildly exaggerated the actual number of visitors, and sought damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: The claim in fraudulent misrepresentation failed. Lewison J discussed why the entire agreement clause satisfied the test of reasonableness within section 11 of the 1977 Act: ‘(i) The aspiration of certainty is a reasonable one for the parties to adopt. In most cases it will have the effect of avoiding a twelve day trial such as this one.
(ii) There was no substantial imbalance of bargaining power between the parties. Each of the tenants was a commercial and substantial concern . .
(iii) Each of the tenants was advised by solicitors . .
(iv) The term itself was open to negotiati . .
(v) Perhaps most importantly, the clause expressly permitted reliance on any reply given by the Henry Boot’s solicitors to the tenant’s solicitors. If, therefore, something of importance had been stated in the course of negotiations upon which the intending tenant wished to rely, its solicitors had only to ask Henry Boot’s solicitors for an answer to a question. That would have revealed whether Henry Boot was prepared to formalise the statement so that the tenant could rely on it or whether the tenant would have to undertake its own due diligence.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 358 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis HL 1968
Lord Pearce (dissenting) discussed the assessment of a witness’ oral evidence: ‘Credibility involves wider problems than mere demeanour which is mostly concerned with whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he now believes it to be. . .
Cited – Henderson v Volk 1982
(Court of Appeal of Ontario) Cory JA said: ‘It is different when a party seeks to establish a right-of-way for pedestrians over a sidewalk. In those circumstances the user sought to be established may not even be known to the owner of the servient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.402541

Muqtaar v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Nov 2011

The claimant challenged as unlawful his continued detention under immigration powers.

Judges:

Timothy Corner QC Dep J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2707 (Admin), C4/2011/3133

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Muqtaar, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Oct-2012
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim that his detention by immigration officials over many months had been unlawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448511

Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation: QBD 28 Oct 2011

The claimant company manufactured electric cars. They claimed that a review of a car on the defendant’s programme ‘Top Gear’ included malicious falsehoods and was defamatory.
Held: The defamatory meanings claimed could not properly be attributed to the material in the program. The claim was struck out.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2760 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .

Cited by:

See also – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Feb-2012
The claimant, manufacturer of electric cars, complained of a review of its car on ‘Top Gear’. It’s pleaded meanings had been rejected, and it now sought leave to amend its pleading to add new alleged defamatory meanings. . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 5-Mar-2013
The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448156

Presgrave v Saunders: 1790

In replevin the plea of property may be pleaded in bar. Whether the property may be alleged to be in the defendant, or in a third person, and ought to be so pleaded.

Citations:

[1790] EngR 1412, (1790) 2 Ld Raym 984, (1790) 92 ER 156 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.364465

Bradmount Investments Ltd v Williams De Broe Plc and others: ChD 10 Nov 2005

The claimants alleged that the defendants had wrongfully induced a breach of contract. There had been a proposal to float a company on the AIM. It was put to the defendant under protection of an agreement so that they might consider working as brokers in the proposed flotation. The agreement contained a particular clause which was not eventually seen by the branch which undertook the work.
Held: There had been a genuine misunderstanding of the terms under which the flotation was to proceed. The claimant had known of its right to require the defendants not to act without express authorisation, but had acquiesced. Acquiescence is an aspect of estoppel by representation.

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2449 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v The Shire of Hastings PC 1977
(Victoria) The Board set out the necessary conditions for a clause to be implied into a contract.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘Their Lordships do not think it necessary to review exhaustively the authorities on the implication of a . .
Cited – Philips Electronic Grant Public Sa and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd CA 31-Oct-1994
The implication of an additional term into a contract is dependant on it being the sole solution. As to the implication of terms generally: ‘The question whether a term should be implied, and if so what, almost inevitably arises after a crisis has . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.234732

Zambia, Attorney General of Zambia for and on Behalf of v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others: ChD 7 Oct 2005

Reasons for dismissal of stay for certain defendants.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 7-Mar-2006
The appellant sought a stay of the action brought against them. The cliamants sought the return of goernment funds said to have been misappropriated. . .
See Also – Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 22-May-2006
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others (No. 2) ChD 29-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1415) CA 17-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1414) CA 17-Dec-2007
Two applications for permission to appeal . .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
See Also – Attorney General of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against two orders made in proceedings by the new government of Zambia alleging various tortious conspiracies by defendants with members of the former government.
Held: Appeals by the remaining two partners in the firm . .
Cited – Independent Trustee Service Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd and Others ChD 1-Jul-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.230951

United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd v Braine and Others: QBD 18 Dec 2019

Reasons for refusal of two applications by the claimants: (1) an application to continue until trial an interim non-disclosure order against these five defendants, first granted after a hearing without notice on; and (2) an application for an order for seizure and search of the fourth defendant’s computer.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3527 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice, Information

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.645995

Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBD 24 Oct 2011

The claimant accused the defendant newspaper and journalist of breach of confidence, conversion and Data Protection breach. They said that he had received and published extracts from a confidential internal document leaked to him.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2705 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 18-Apr-2011
The defendant had been sued in defamation, and now sought release of police records as to the claimant. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447532

Byers and Others v Samba Financial Group (230): ChD 15 Jan 2021

Reasons for grant of leave to appeal

Judges:

Fancourt J

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 230 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Byers and Others v Samba Financial Group ChD 20-Dec-2019
Application by the defendant issued for an extension of the date by which the defendant was required to give standard disclosure. . .
See Also – Byers and Others v Samba Financial Group ChD 8-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Byers and Others v Samba Financial Group ChD 24-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Byers and Others v Samba Financial Group ChD 2-Oct-2020
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Byers and Others v Samba Financial Group (60) ChD 15-Jan-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Registered Land

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.658049

Roder UK Ltd v West and Another: CA 12 Oct 2011

The claimant sought to allege that the defendant company director was personally liable after misrepresentations as to the company’s creditworthiness in ordering goods when the defendant was really insolvent.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The facts did not fall within the scope of section 6: ‘There was no purpose or intention on the part of the appellants, when they made the relevant representations, that Titan should obtain money. Still less was there a purpose or intent that Titan should obtain goods, since the relevant goods had been obtained many months before.’

Judges:

Longmore, Hallett, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1126, [2012] QB 752, [2012] 3 WLR 469, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 659, [2012] 1 All ER 1305, [2011] NPC 101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Statute of Frauds Act 1677 4, Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pasley v Freeman 1789
Tort of Deceit Set Out
The court considered the tort of deceit. A representation by one person that another person was creditworthy was actionable if made fraudulently. A false affirmation made by the defendant with intent to defraud the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff . .
Cited – Lyde v Barnard CExC 1836
The question before the court was whether a misrepresentation, that a particular fund in which Lord Edward Thynne had a life interest was charged with only three annuities, was a representation relating to Lord Edward’s credit or ability within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445404

Man Nutzfahrzeuge Ag and Another v Freightliner Ltd: CA 12 Sep 2007

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Dyson LJ, Thomas LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 910, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Man Nutzfahrzeuge Ag and others v Freightliner Ltd ComC 28-Oct-2005
. .
See Also – Man Nutzfahrzeuge Aktiengesellschaft and others v Freightliner Ltd and others ComC 7-Oct-2003
. .
Cited – Edgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.259317

Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club): QBD 8 Oct 2014

The claimant, a professional gambler, sued the defendant casino for his winnings. The club replied that the claimant’s methods amounted to a form of cheating, and that no liability arose to pay the winnings.
Held: The claim failed. ‘The fact that the claimant is genuinely convinced that he is not a cheat and even that that opinion commands considerable support from others, – see for example, Dr. Jacobson, – is not determinative of the question.’ and ‘It is immaterial that the casino could have protected itself against it by simple measures. The casino can protect itself by simple measures against cheating or legitimate advantage play. The fact that it can do so does not determine which it is.’ The claimant was truthful when he said that he did not consider what he did to be cheating; therefore dishonesty and in particular the second leg of the test established by R v Ghosh had not been demonstrated. However, his play on this occasion amounted in law to cheating. This meant he had breached the terms on which Crockfords agreed to allow him to play:

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3394 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 504

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Gaming Act 1845 17, Gaming Act 2005 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited – Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash CA 19-Nov-2010
It is ultimately for the court to decide, as it must in the case of the standard of honesty to be expected in dealing of businessmen and trustees, whether or not conduct amounts to cheating. The standard is objective.
Leveson LJ identified the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (T/A Crockfords Club) CA 4-Nov-2016
The claimant sought recovery of his substantial winnings from the defendant gaming club. The club had resisted saying that the methods used by the claimant at cards, called, ‘edge sorting’ was a form of cheating, a criminal offence within the . .
At First Instance – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.538709

Docherty and Others v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 2 Sep 2011

The pursuers each sought damages, saying that the conditions in which they had been held whilst prisoners in HMP Barlinnie had infringed their human rights.
Held: It would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of process for a person to proceed by way of an ordinary action to establish that a public authority’s decision had infringed rights that were entitled to protection under public law. Where private rights depended on prior public law decisions, they must ordinarily be litigated by judicial review.

Judges:

Lord President, Lady Smith, Lord Wheatley

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 58, 2012 SC 150

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443605

Suckrajh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Another: CA 29 Jul 2011

The claimant sought, through judicial review, a declaration that he was unlawfully detained for 46 days by the UKBA and damages for false imprisonment and for breach of Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention. The UKBA had detained the claimant under the Detained Fast Track procedure. The claimant contended that it had no right to do so. Under this procedure asylum seekers are detained at immigration detention facilities while their claims and any appeal are determined. The stated objective of the procedure was to enable straightforward claims to be determined speedily.

Judges:

Thomas, Lloyd, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 938

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442422

OM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2011

The claimant, a failed asylum seeker challenged the lawfulness of her continued administrative detention pending her deportation and return to Niger.
Held: When assessing the damages payable in such cases: ‘It seems to me that on normal compensatory principles it would be for the claimant to prove his loss on the balance of probabilities.’

Judges:

Ward, Richards, Hughes LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 909

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442257

Bolkiah and others v The State of Brunei Darussalam and Another (63): PC 8 Nov 2007

(Brunei Darussalam)

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Mance
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Citations:

[2007] UKPC 63

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bolkiah and others v The State of Brunei Darussalam and Another (62) PC 8-Nov-2007
(Brunei Darussalam) The Board considered whether the chief Justice of Brunei could be considered to be properly independent.
Held: Lord Bingham rejected the contention for an objective perception of bias as fanciful, saying of the Chief . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.261487

Ayobiojo, Ayobiojo v McGoldrick, McGoldrick: CA 2 Jun 1998

The defendant, in repairing their roof had removed a ridge on their neighbour’s property roof. The neighbour had claimed as damages the cost of re-roofing their entire roof. The judge had been unable to see any loss or quantify any damages.
Held: The plaintiff’s were entitled to the cost of re-instating the ridge only.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.144373

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another: CA 13 Jan 2017

The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an arbitration beween the claimant and the former partner, which were lost, and the defendants had successfully argued that it was an abuse of process for the claimant now to pursue them, even though they had not been party to the arbitration. The claimants now appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed. There was indeed a jurisdition for a court to take account of an earlier arbitration (as opposed to a court) award, when considering whether proceedings were an abuse, but the Judge had been wrong to exercise the discretion which arose in these particular circumstances.
The court summarised the relevant principles: (1) In cases where there is no res judicata or issue estoppel, the power to strike out a claim for abuse of process is founded on two interests: the private interest of a party not to be vexed twice for the same reason and the public interest of the state in not having issues repeatedly litigated; see Lord Diplock in Hunter v. Chief Constable, Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur Hall case and Lord Bingham in Johnson v. Gore Wood. These interests reflect unfairness to a party on the one hand, and the risk of the administration of public justice being brought into disrepute on the other, see again Lord Diplock in Hunter v. Chief Constable. Both or either interest may be engaged.
(2) An abuse may occur where it is sought to bring new proceedings in relation to issues that have been decided in prior proceedings. However, there is no prima facie assumption that such proceedings amount to an abuse, see Bragg v. Oceanus; and the court’s power is only used where justice and public policy demand it, see Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur Hall case.
(3) To determine whether proceedings are abusive the Court must engage in a close ‘merits based’ analysis of the facts. This will take into account the private and public interests involved, and will focus on the crucial question: whether in all the circumstances a party is abusing or misusing the court’s process, see Lord Bingham in Johnson v. Gore Wood and Buxton LJ in Taylor Walton v. Laing.
(4) In carrying out this analysis, it will be necessary to have in mind that: (a) the fact that the parties may not have been the same in the two proceedings is not dispositive, since the circumstances may be such as to bring the case within ‘the spirit of the rules’, see Lord Hoffmann in the Arthur Hall case; thus (b) it may be an abuse of process, where the parties in the later civil proceedings were neither parties nor their privies in the earlier proceedings, if it would be manifestly unfair to a party in the later proceedings that the same issues should be relitigated, see Sir Andrew Morritt V-C in the Bairstow case; or, as Lord Hobhouse put it in the Arthur Hall case, if there is an element of vexation in the use of litigation for an improper purpose.
(5) It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse of process, see Lord Hobhouse in In re Norris . .
(6) An appeal against a decision to strike out on the grounds of abuse, described by Lord Sumption JSC in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2014] AC 160 at [17] as the application of a procedural rule against abusive proceedings, is a challenge to the judgment of the court below and not to the exercise of a discretion. Nevertheless, in reviewing the decision the Court of Appeal will give considerable weight to the views of the judge, see Buxton LJ in the Taylor Walton case, at [13].

Judges:

Patten , Simon LJJ, Sir Ernest Ryder SPT

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 3, [2017] WLR(D) 18

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 12-Mar-2008
The court considered the implication of the obligation of confidentiality in banking contracts or in arbitration agreements. It is ‘really a rule of substantive law masquerading as an implied term’. . .
Cited – Reichel v Magrath PC 1889
The new vicar of Sparsholt, Dr Magrath, was able to rely on the abuse of process even though he had not been party to earlier proceedings between Reichel and the Bishop of Oxford and the Queen’s College and so was not bound by any issue estoppel . .
Cited – Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) HL 20-Jul-2000
Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers.
Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 6-Nov-2008
Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 23-Jul-2015
. .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 14-Oct-2015
Appeal against a finding that payments made by the appellant were made in the ordinary course of business and not in breach of a freezing injunction. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 11-Dec-2015
The court considered a residual jurisdiction to set aside an arbitrator’s award after a first appeal. . .
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners ComC 24-Nov-2016
Application for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant to restrain it from taking any further steps in ongoing proceedings in New South Wales and from commencing or pursuing any other substantive claims against the claimant on the ground that . .
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Bragg v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd CA 1982
The court considered the ability to prevent relitigation of issues already decided. The Court identified some of the limits of the abuse jurisdiction. Kerr LJ said: ‘To take the authorities first, it is clear that an attempt to relitigate in another . .
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow CA 11-Mar-2003
The Secretary of State attempted, in the course of director’s disqualification proceedings, to rely upon findings made against Mr Bairstow in an earlier wrongful dismissal action to which he had been a party but the Secretary of State not. The . .
Cited – Taylor Walton (A Firm) v Laing CA 15-Nov-2007
The appellants appealed against a refusal to strike out as an abuse of process the respondent’s claim against them for professional negligence in the drafting of development agreements.
Buxton LJ considered the nature of the enquiry on such an . .
Cited – Taylor Walton (A Firm) v Laing CA 15-Nov-2007
The appellants appealed against a refusal to strike out as an abuse of process the respondent’s claim against them for professional negligence in the drafting of development agreements.
Buxton LJ considered the nature of the enquiry on such an . .
Cited – Kotonou v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 30-Oct-2015
Appeal against summary dismissal of claim against the bank based on Henderson v Henderson.
Gloster LJ, commented on Buxton LJ’s observations in the Taylor Walton case: ‘Thus, in my view, what is required in the present case is ‘an intense focus . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.573280

JGE v The English Province of Our Lady of Charity and Another: QBD 8 Nov 2011

The court was asked as a preliminary issue who should be the defendant where a claim was made of rape and other assaults by a priest who was a member of the diocese of the second defendant, but employed by the first defendant school.

Judges:

MacDuff J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2871 (QB), [2012] 2 WLR 709, [2012] 1 All ER 723, [2012] PTSR 633, [2012] PIQR P5, [2012] IRLR 301, [2013] QB 722

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust CA 12-Jul-2012
The claimant suffered physical and serious sexual abuse whilst a child at a children’s home run by the defendant. A parish priest committed some of the abuse, and she claimed that the defendants were vicariously liable. They denied such liability. . .
At first instance – The Catholic Child Welfare Society and Others v Various Claimants and The Institute of The Brothers of The Christian Schools and Others SC 21-Nov-2012
Law of vicarious liability is on the move
Former children at the children’s homes had sought damages for sexual and physical abuse. The court heard arguments as to the vicarious liability of the Society for abuse caused by a parish priest visiting the school. The Court of Appeal had found . .
Cited – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.448162

Windsor v Bristol Crown Court and Another: Admn 27 Jul 2011

The claimants, including a solicitor, had challenged by way of judicial review decision to issue search warrants. Orders had been granted limiting certain aspects of the orders and injuncting the Revenue against examination etc of documents already taken into its possession. The revenue now appealed to vary the orders lifting the restrictions.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Parker J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1899 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442238

Webster v Attorney General (Trinidad and Tobago): PC 18 Jul 2011

The claimant appealed against an order striking out substantial elements of his claim against the police for assault.

Judges:

Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Wilson

Citations:

[2011] UKPC 22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Police, Constitutional

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442112

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and Another v Young: CA 14 Nov 2006

The claimant sought damages saying that he had been abused as a child whilst in the defendant’s care. The defendants appealed a finding that the claimant had not first known of his injury more than three years before begining his action.
Held: The same word ‘reasonable’ in sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the 1980 Act was to be interpreted in the same way, and the words ‘sufficiently serious’ in 14(2) were pivotal. Whether the test was passed was a question of fact in the case. In this case, the claimant knew that the injuries were significant in December 1996, and his claim was time-barred.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Dyson LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1534, [2003] QB 1441, [2007] 1 All ER 895, [2007] 2 WLR 1192, [2007] PIQR P15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the . .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .

Cited by:

Cited – McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence CA 24-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed a decision allowing a claim to proceed more than ten years after it had been suffered. The claimant’s hearing had been damaged after an officer threw a thunderflash into his trench on an exercise.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Appeal from – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.246007

Parker v The Chief Constable of Essex Police: CA 11 Dec 2018

The claimant was arrested on suspicion of murder and rape. The investigating officer was delayed by traffic so the arrest was carried out by a surveillance officer who was present at the scene but did not personally have reasonable grounds for suspecting the claimant was guilty of an offence, as required by section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Held: The judge had been entitled to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of an offence and a reasonable belief in the necessity of arrest, and therefore the claimant was entitled only nominal and not substantial damages.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P, Hallett, Ryder LJJ

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 755, [2018] EWCA Civ 2788, [2019] 3 All ER 399, [2019] 1 WLR 2238

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police, Damages

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.631417

Clark v Bourne Leisure Ltd: CA 30 Jun 2011

The defendant, operator of a holiday park, appealed against a finding of liability for the accident causing the claimant’s injury. The claimant, in a wheelchair, had ascended one part of the room by a ramp, but then tried to return to the lower level mistakenly believing a further ramp existed. It did not and she was injured. The claimant however had not herself given evidence. In correspondence, at a time when the defendant misunderstood the circumstances they had mistakenly asserted the existence of warning measures.
Held: The judge had allowed himself to be wrongly influenced by two misapprehensions, and his decision could not stand. On studying the photographs and ‘no one looking at that scene could possibly think that he or she was approaching a sloping ramp. In my judgment, it was quite obvious and apparent that there was a difference in level between the wooden floor of the upper level and the small seating area on the intermediate level.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Elias LJJ, Dame Janet Smith

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 753

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441393

Telegraph Media Group Ltd v Thornton: CA 22 Jun 2011

Judges:

Carnwath, Leveson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 748

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 12-Nov-2009
The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was . .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd CA 29-Mar-2010
. .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 16-Jun-2010
The claimant said that a review of her book was defamatory and a malicious falsehood. The defendant now sought summary judgment or a ruling as to the meaning of the words complained of.
Held: The application for summary judgment succeeded. The . .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 4-Feb-2011
The defendant sought permission to amend its defence to the claim in malicious falsehood. . .
See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 27-May-2011
The defendant appealed against an order refusing trial by judge alone on the basis that the application had been made out of time. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 26-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged defamation and malicious falsehood in an article published and written by the defendants. She complained that she was said to have fabricated an interview with the second defendant for her book. An interview of sorts had now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441293

Bleasdale and Another v Forster: ChD 2 Mar 2011

The claimants sought damages alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and or breach of contract in inducing them to invest in the defendant’s company.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 416 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bleasdale and Another v Forster (596) ChD 16-Mar-2011
Order on application for leave to amend particulars of claim after strike out of claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.430373

Islamic Republic of Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd: CA 21 Dec 2007

The republic appealed the striking out of its claims for the return of artefacts which formed part of its national heritage and were alleged to have been unlawfully removed.
Held: The claim was not an attempt to apply a foreign penal law. There were positive reasons of publc policy as to why such claims should not be shut out. A refusal to allow a foreign state to assert title to such antiquities would render impossible similar claims by the UK If Iran could show that it had a title, it should be allowed to enforce that title.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1374, Times 07-Jan-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2007
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.263406

Earls Terrace Properties Ltd v Nilsson Design Ltd: TCC 27 Feb 2004

The Insurance company sought enforcement of a Tomlin Order, and the defendant sought its setting aside for having been obtained by misrepresentation.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Thornton QC

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 136 (TCC), 94 Con LR 118, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 28, [2004] BLR 273

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.201842

Mosley v Associated Newspapers Limited: QBD 22 Dec 2020

The Court considered whether the Defendant is liable for the tort of malicious prosecution as a result of sending a ‘dossier’ of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, intending that the Claimant be investigated for alleged perjury, even if ultimately no criminal investigation or prosecution ensued.

Judges:

Nicklin J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3545 (QB), [2021] 4 WLR 29

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.656952

Khaled v SS Home Department: Admn 18 Apr 2016

The Court was asked as to the making of orders for the return of asylum seekers to Bulgaria, being their first country of arrival within the EU. The claimants challenged both the lawfulness of their removal and the lawfulness of their detention.
Held: Two of the claims were allowed, but the third failed.

Judges:

Garnham J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 857 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Khaled, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (No 2) Admn 15-Jun-2016
The claimant failed asylum seekers sought damages alleging that their detention pending removal had been unlawful. . .
At Admin (1) – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.562133

Z, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 12 Mar 2013

‘This case concerns the use of force to facilitate the removal from the UK of those who have no legal right to be here and who display a reluctance to cooperate with the process of removal.’ In particular the claimant said that the procedures set out for restraining returnees in flight infringed their Article 3 rights.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 498 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.471684

Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others: ChD 18 Jan 2013

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 25 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others ChD 13-Feb-2013
Unresolved issues. . .
At ChD – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.470368

Challinor and Others v Juliet Bellis and Co (A Firm): ChD 9 Dec 2011

Appeal against order granting summary judgement.

Judges:

Hildyard J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3249 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Challinor and Others v Juliet Bellis and Co and Another ChD 25-Feb-2013
. .
See Also – Challinor and 20 Others v Juliet Bellis and Co and Egan ChD 19-Mar-2013
The court considered the correct approach to the award of statutory interest.
Held: Hildyard J said: ‘As to (1), it seems to me that the Court’s overall approach in the authorities cited to me is to distinguish between (a) cases relating to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.449893

Challinor and Others v Juliet Bellis and Co and Another: ChD 25 Feb 2013

Judges:

Hidyard J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 347 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Challinor and Others v Juliet Bellis and Co (A Firm) ChD 9-Dec-2011
Appeal against order granting summary judgement. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Challinor and 20 Others v Juliet Bellis and Co and Egan ChD 19-Mar-2013
The court considered the correct approach to the award of statutory interest.
Held: Hildyard J said: ‘As to (1), it seems to me that the Court’s overall approach in the authorities cited to me is to distinguish between (a) cases relating to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Trusts, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.471577

Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others: ChD 13 Feb 2013

Unresolved issues.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 209 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others ChD 18-Jan-2013
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.470949

S v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 16 Jul 2012

Application for judicial review of detention pursuant to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, pending his removal to Togo, following notice of a deportation order.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1939 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.463288

Congentra Ag v Sixteen Thirteen Marine Sa (‘the Nicholas M’): ComC 15 Jul 2008

Applications for dismissal of interim freezing order and for continuance. Order not set aside. The claim was for a freezing order to support a claim for recovery of damage to goods being transported. The court now considered an allegation that the order had been made on the basis of a misrepresentation of a telephone call. It had been said that threats had been made, but a recording had shown this to be untrue.

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1615 (Comm), [2008] 2 CLC 51, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 602, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 479

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crawford v Jenkins CA 24-Jul-2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were . .
Cited – Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini Doo and Others QBD 23-Nov-2015
Action for misuse of private information and libel. Application to have set aside leave to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendant published a newspaper in Serbian, in print in Serbia and online. Though in Serbian, the claimant said that online . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.270815

John Lewis and Co Ltd v Tims: HL 1952

There had been an arrest by shop detectives of two customers who were believed to have stolen goods, the arrest taking place after they had left the shop. The shop detectives returned with them to the shop in order to allow a senior person in management to decide what steps should be taken, the decision being to hand them over to the police to pursue charges.
Held: The House rejected the proposition that they were to be taken before a justice immediately or forthwith, accepted that the requirement was to take them before a justice as soon as reasonably practicable, and held that there was no breach of that standard involved in taking them back to a responsible officer, who might then deliver them to the authority of the police. Being an arrest by private citizens, the validity of the arrest turned on whether a theft had been committed.
Where in exercise of the common law power of arrest, a person arrests another for an offence, his duty is to take the arrested person before a justice or to a police station as soon as he reasonably can.
Lord Porter said: ‘Those who arrest must be persuaded of the guilt of the accused; they cannot bolster up their assurance or the strength of the case by seeking further evidence and detaining the man arrested meanwhile or taking him to some spot where they can or may find further evidence.’

Citations:

[1952] AC 676, [1952] 1 All ER 1203; [1952] 1 WLR 1132, [1952] 1 TLR 1132, [1951] 2 KB 549

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others Admn 19-Feb-2004
The court considered a claim for judicial review of a police officer’s decision to turn back a number of coaches. Each coach contained passengers en route to join a demonstration at an RAF base in Gloucestershire, the officer honestly and reasonably . .
Cited – Howarth v Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD 1-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.221537

Livingston Properties Equities Inc and Others v JSC MCC Eurochem and Another: PC 30 Nov 2020

(From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (British Virgin Islands)) Appeal concerns service of the proceedings arising out of alleged frauds

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2020] UKPC 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.659461

JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov: SC 21 Mar 2018

A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s son-in-law living in Switzerland. It was claimed that he had assisted A in the disposal of assets and was guilty of conspiracy in the UK to cause financial loss to the bank by unlawful means, namely serial breaches of the freezing and receivership orders in contempt of court. He now appealed against a decision that the court had jurisdiction over him.
Held: The appeal failed.
The bank’s claims would, if established, amount to an unlawful means conspiracy. Conspiracies, broadly, have two forms, ‘lawful means’ and ‘unlawful means’ conspiracy. A person may pursue his interests by lawful means, even if it can be foreseen that others’ interests will suffer. If he chooses unlawful means, then he has no such right. That is true also where the means chosen are lawful but the overriding intention of the defendant is to injure the claimant. Either undermines any cause or excuse for the ‘combination’ with others.
Conspiracy is a tort of primary liability, and not just a kind of joint liability. Therefore the test of unlawful means is not derivable from whether they would give allow to a different action independent of the conspiracy. The test is of the existence of a just cause for the defendants combining with each other to use unlawful means. That depends on (i) the nature of the unlawfulness; and (ii) its relationship with the resultant damage to the claimant.
Article 5 provided an exception to the domicile requirement for jurisdiction that the a claim could be pursued in the jurisdiction where the events (in this case the agreement) alleged happened. That had been correctly established as being within the UK, and jurisdiction was established.

Judges:

Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC

Citations:

[2018] 3 All ER 293, [2018] UKSC 19, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 479, [2018] WLR(D) 184, [2018] ILPr 26, UKSC 2017/0043, [2020] AC 727, [2018] 2 WLR 1125

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Vid 24/01/2018 am, SC Vid 24/01/2018 pm, SC Vid 25/01/2018 am

Statutes:

Lugano Convention 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank CA 2-Feb-2017
. .
Cited – Quinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Cited – Lonrho plc v Fayed HL 2-Jan-1991
In a conspiracy, the intent to injure need not be the primary intent, but there must be some intent which involves the conspiring parties directing their minds towards the victim or a category of persons which would include the victim as a target to . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
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 – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co CA 2-Jul-1889
Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy.
Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that . .
Cited – Couling v Coxe 7-Dec-1848
A plaintiff in a civil action who has issued a witness summons or subpoena to a witness to attend may have an action against a witness who fails to attend, but the damages recoverable were limited to the costs of an abortive hearing when the . .
Cited – Fairclough and Sons v The Manchester Ship Canal Co CA 1897
The court considered the remedies for a contempt of court.
Held: Lord Russell CJ said: ‘We desire to make it clear that in such cases no casual or accidental and unintentional disobedience of an Order would justify either a commitment or . .
Cited – Sorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
Cited – Chapman v Honig CA 1963
A landlord’s notice to quit was held valid notwithstanding that the landlord seeking to uphold its validity had himself given it in contempt of court.
A contractual right may be exercised for any reason good, bad or indifferent and the motive . .
Cited – Mileage Conference Group of the Tyre Manufacturers’ Conference Ltd’s Agreement 1966
A substantial fine was imposed for contempt by breach of an undertaking which was not merely non-contumacious, but was committed reasonably on legal advice.
Megaw J suggested, obiter, that a penal order against a contemnor might include a . .
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – N v Agrawal CA 9-Jun-1999
A doctor examining a victim of a rape, but who failed to give evidence at court was not liable to the victim for further psychiatric damages caused by the resultant collapse of the prosecution. There was no doctor/patient relationship to give rise . .
Cited – Re Hudson, Hudson v Hudson ChD 1966
The plaintiff’s marriage had been dissolved and her former husband was ordered to pay her maintenance at a specified rate. The husband subsequently filed evidence that he was unable to comply with that order but offered to undertake to pay one-third . .
Cited – Cement LaFarge v BC Lightweight Aggregate 26-Apr-1983
(Supreme Court of Canada) Respondent, a supplier of lightweight aggregate, ceased business and was awarded damages for the tort of conspiracy to injure after its client, a manufacturer, began using another aggregate to produce its light-weight . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
Cited – Handelskwekerij GJ Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D’Alsace Sa ECJ 30-Nov-1976
Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression ‘place . .
Cited – Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .
Cited – Midland Marts v Hobday ChD 1989
The court considered a claim for costs on an application for committal of the defendant for infringement.
Held: Vinelott J said: ‘I can see no reason in principle why the Court, if satisfied that the facts proved at the hearing of a motion to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.608731

Clifford v The Chief Constable of The Hertfordshire Constabulary: QBD 1 Apr 2011

The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office bought by the claimant who was charged with child pornography offences in July 2004. The prosecution had eventually offered no evidence. He said that it should have been clear much earlier that no further action was sustainable, the prosecution expert having indicated that his evidence did not support the charge.
Held: The claim succeeded. For some time the officer in the case had had no honest belief that there was any supporting evidence for the possession charges other than the mere presence of the pop ups on the computer. It appeared that the officer, threatened with legal action persisted so as to resist that threat, and he had further acted to attempt to delay the trial. That amounted to malice.
As to damages, the damage was made worse by the nature of the allegation, and an award of andpound;20,000 was made.

Judges:

Mackay J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 815 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
Cited – Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions; Goodland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Mar-2000
For possession of an indecent image of a child to be proved, it was necessary to establish some knowledge of its existence. Images stored without the defendant’s knowledge by browser software in a hidden cache, of which he was also unaware, were not . .
Cited – Thompson v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis; Hsu v Same CA 20-Feb-1997
CS Damages of 200,000 pounds by way of exemplary damages had been awarded against the police for unlawful arrest and assault.
Held: The court gave a guideline maximum pounds 50,000 award against police for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439830

McMillan Williams (a Firm) v Range: CA 17 Mar 2004

The respondent was employed as a solicitor to be paid commission on fees paid. She received advances against those payments. She was dismissed after failing to reach the targets. The employer sought repayment of the excess advances. She replied that the payments were Credit, and void under the Act.
Held: The agreement did not provide credit. The solicitor was earning the money, not repaying the advance. At the time of the contract no debt could be said to be created. The contract was essentially a means for payment of remuneration. When entered into either party might owe the other sums, and it could not be predicted which way it would be. It was not a credit agreement, and so was not unenforceable.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Mantell LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 294, Times 16-Apr-2004, [2005] ECC 8, [2004] 1 WLR 1858

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Fattah Nejad v City Index Limited CA 12-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.194684

Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons: TCC 28 Oct 1999

The claimant said that the respondent had awarded a contract for works at the House of Commons disregarding its obligations under European law as regards open tendering.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Technology 199, 1996 ORB No 1151, (1999) 67 Con LR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fur das Saarland (Judgment) ECJ 16-Dec-1976
‘the right of individuals to rely on the directly effective provisions of the Treaty before national courts is only a minimum guarantee and is not sufficient in itself to ensure the full and complete implementation of the Treaty’
1. The . .
Cited – Commission v Denmark ECJ 22-Jun-1993
Opinion – Tesauro AG said: ‘where a public contract falls to be awarded, it is precisely because the procedure is a competition that it must be ensured that all those who take part have an equal chance; otherwise, it would no longer be a public . .
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons TCC 29-Jun-2000
The company began a claim for damages for the failure to complete an award of a contract, but then went into voluntary liquidation. The defendant refused payment claiming that it would be used only for payment of the insolvency practitioner’s costs. . .
Cited – Montpellier Estates Ltd v Leeds City Council QBD 24-Jun-2010
The defendant sought to strike out certain parts of the claim against it relating to the tendering process for works on a substantial development. It was said that the defendant had given improper preference for the development of its own site.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Construction, European

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.135813

AA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 10 Jul 2013

The issue on this appeal is the effect of section 55 on the legality of the appellant’s detention under paragraph 16 over a period of 13 days. At the time of the detention the Secretary of State acted in the mistaken but reasonable belief that he was aged over 18. It is now an agreed fact that he was born on 1 February 1993 and so was aged 17. If his true age had been known he would not have been detained, because his detention would have been contrary to the Secretary of State’s policy in relation to minors. The appellant’s case was that the fact of his age made his detention unlawful on the proper construction of section 55, and that the Secretary of State’s reasonable belief that he was over 18 was no defence to his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. The respondent acting under a genuine and reasonable if mistaken belief was not liable. To safeguard children the Secretary of State had to establish proper systems for arriving at a reliable assessment of a person’s age. That was not easy. She was vicariously responsible for the actions of her officers, but had issued detailed and appropriate guidance the evidence was that that guidance had been followed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2013] UKSC 49, [2014] INLR 51, [2013] 1 WLR 2224, [2013] HRLR 34, [2013] 3 FCR 515, [2013] WLR(D) 272, [2013] 4 All ER 140, UKSC 2013/0032

Links:

Bailii, Balii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD, Gazette

Statutes:

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 55, Immigration Act 1971 S2, 16(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – AA, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Oct-2012
The applicant had been detained for immigration purposes, but it then transpired that, though unaccompanied on arrival, he was under 18, and should not have been detained. He was released after 13 days, but now sought judicial review. . .
Cited – Regina (B) v Merton London Borough Council Admn 14-Jul-2003
The authority had to decide the age of the applicant, an asylum seeker, in order to decide whether a duty was owed to him under the Act. He complained that the procedure adopted was unfair. The 2002 Act did not apply to persons under 18, and he . .
At first instance – A, Regina (on The Application of) v Cardiff County Council and Others Admn 7-Mar-2011
The claimant pursued an application for permission to apply for judicial review against the Secretary of State. He had entered unlawfully, and been held in immigration detention, but said that as a child at the time, he should not have bee detained. . .
Cited – AAM (A Child) v Secretary of State for The Home Department QBD 27-Sep-2012
The claimant sought damages, alleging false imprisonment and breach of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The defendant conceded that the detention had been unlawful because officers had wrongly applied a presumption that an . .
Cited – Liversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.512251

Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co: QBD 31 Oct 1888

The defendants, who were firms of shipowners trading between China and Europe, with a view to obtaining for themselves a monopoly of the homeward tea trade and thereby keeping up the rate of freight, formed themselves into an association, and offered to such merchants and shippers in China as shipped their tea exclusively in vessels belonging to members of the association a rebate of 5 per cent, on all freights paid by them. The plaintiffs, who were rival shipowners trading between China and Europe, were excluded by the defendants from all the benefits of the association, and in consequence of such exclusion, sustained damage.
Held, that the association, being formed by the defendants with the view of keeping the trade in their own hands and not with the intention of ruining the trade of the plaintiffs, or through any personal malice or ill-will towards them, was not unlawful, and that no action for a conspiracy was maintainable.

Judges:

Lord Coleridge CJ

Citations:

[1888] UKLawRpKQB 167, (1888) 21 QBD 544

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 10-Aug-1885
Ship owners formed themselves into an association to protect their trading interests which then caused damage to rival ship owners. The plaintiffs complained about being kept out of the conference of shipowners trading between China and London.

Cited by:

Appeal from – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co CA 2-Jul-1889
Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy.
Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that . .
At QBD (2) – Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow and Co HL 18-Dec-1891
An association of shipowners agreed to use various lawful means to dissuade customers from shipping their goods by the Mogul line.
Held: The agreement was lawful in the sense that it gave the Mogul Company no right to sue them. But (majority) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.659345

Cement LaFarge v BC Lightweight Aggregate: 26 Apr 1983

(Supreme Court of Canada) Respondent, a supplier of lightweight aggregate, ceased business and was awarded damages for the tort of conspiracy to injure after its client, a manufacturer, began using another aggregate to produce its light-weight concrete. The action by appellants, who had earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to prevent or unduly lessen competition in the production of cement contrary to s. 32(1) (c) of the Combines Investigation Act, made it impossible for respondent to improve its market position. It was found at trial and on appeal that, while appellants did intend to eliminate competition, they did not deliberately conspire to drive respondent out of business. Both courts also concluded that the tort of conspiracy to injure did not include an intent to injure the plaintiff, as a prerequisite, where the defendants had acted unlawfully to effect the ends of their conspiracy. The appellants appealed that finding and further argued that the ‘wrongful means’ required for the tort of conspiracy could not consist of (1) a breach of s. 32(1) (c) of the Combines Investigation Act, (2) fictitious tenders to third parties or fraud or deceit with respect to such third parties, or (3) injury to the purported right not to be deprived of the benefits flowing from a free and competitive market.
Held: The appeals should be allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.
The tort of conspiracy exists: (1) if the predominant purpose of defendant’s conduct is to cause plaintiff injury, whether or not defendants’ means were lawful; or (2) where defendants’ conduct is unlawful and directed towards the plaintiff (alone or with others) and in circumstances that the defendants should know that injury to the plaintiff is likely to, and does, result notwithstanding the fact that the predominant purpose of’ defendants’ conduct be not necessary to cause injury to the plaintiff.
Respondent was not entitled to claim for damages under this tort because the necessary intention to injure did not exist here. Appellants discontinued their use of respondent’s product for solid business reasons and not because of any plan calculated to damage it: the unlawful market-sharing agreements were neither directed against nor intended to injure respondent. Further, because respondent tried to share in the benefits accruing to appellants from those agreements it could not validly argue that it had been unlawfully deprived of its right to the benefits of a free market.

Judges:

Laskin CJ and Ritchie, Estey, McIntyre and Wilson JJ

Citations:

1983 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1983] 1 SCR 452, 47 NR 191, 145 DLR (3d) 385, [1983] 6 WWR 385, 21 BLR 254, [1983] CarswellBC 812, [1983] ACS no 33

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.659346

Credico Marketing Ltd and Another v Lambert and Another: QBD 5 Feb 2021

Application by the claimants seeking orders (i) adding persons to the proceedings as defendants; (ii) amending the Claim Form to include claims against the proposed additional defendants for damages for tortiously inducing the defendants’ breach of covenants and/or contractual undertakings; (iii) amending the Claim Form to include claims for damages and an account of profits against the defendants; and (iv) varying the directions to trial.

Judges:

Geraint Webb QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge)

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 204 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.658656

Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others: ChD 15 Apr 2010

The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with mobile telephones communications networks operated by the defendants.
Held: The court examined the duties placed on the defendants by the legislation, and whether their responses were breaches of such. There is nothing requiring the court to conclude that breaches of statutory duty, which are neither criminal nor tortious, are incapable of constituting ‘unlawful acts’ for the purposes of the unlawful means conspiracy, or that breaches of contract are incapable of constituting ‘unlawful acts.’

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 774 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Another v Al Bader and Others CA 18-May-2000
The differences between tortious conspiracies where the underlying acts were either themselves unlawful or not, did not require that the conspiracy claim be merged in the underlying acts where those acts were tortious. A civil conspiracy to injure . .
Cited – Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow and Co HL 18-Dec-1891
An association of shipowners agreed to use various lawful means to dissuade customers from shipping their goods by the Mogul line.
Held: The agreement was lawful in the sense that it gave the Mogul Company no right to sue them. But (majority) . .
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 – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co CA 2-Jul-1889
Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy.
Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that . .
Cited – Sorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and others v Logo Ltd and others QBD 21-Sep-2005
The court was asked whether a crime, which was not an actionable tort, constituted unlawful means for the purposes of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. . .
Cited – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Associated British Ports v TGWU CA 1989
Application was made for an interim injunction and the court asked whether the plaintiff had shown that its claim involved a serious issue to be tried.
Held: The essence of the tort of wrongful interference was ‘deliberate and intended . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) CA 6-Mar-1981
Lonrho had supplied oil to Southern Rhodesia. It gave up this profitable business when the UK imposed sanctions on that country. It claimed that Shell had conspired unlawfully to break the sanctions, thereby prolonging the illegal regime in Southern . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.408508

Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co: CA 2 Jul 1889

Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy.
Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that agreement is carried into execution by the conspirators by means of an unlawful act or acts which produce private injury to the claimant. ‘[M]alicious’ was not to be given its ordinary meaning (malice in fact), but rather a technical legal meaning (malice in law), meaning an intention to carry out an act that was wrongful in order to damage another or to the detriment of another, or to hurt another. Bowen LJ: ‘No man, whether trader or not, can however justify damaging another in his commercial business by fraud or misrepresentation. Intimidation, obstruction and molestation are forbidden; so is the intentional procurement or violation of individual rights, contractual or other, assuming always that there is no just cause for it . . but the defendants have been guilty of none of these acts. They have done nothing more against the plaintiffs than pursue to the bitter end a war of competition waged in the context of their own trade. To the argument that a competition so pursued ceases to have a just cause or excuse when there is ill-will or a personal intention to harm it is sufficient to reply (as I have already pointed out) that there was here no personal intention to do any other than such as was necessarily involved in the desire to attract to the defendant’s ships the entire tea freights of the ports.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR, Bowen LJ, Fry LJ

Citations:

(1889) 23 QBD 555, [1889] UKLawRpKQB 117

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 10-Aug-1885
Ship owners formed themselves into an association to protect their trading interests which then caused damage to rival ship owners. The plaintiffs complained about being kept out of the conference of shipowners trading between China and London.
Appeal from – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 31-Oct-1888
The defendants, who were firms of shipowners trading between China and Europe, with a view to obtaining for themselves a monopoly of the homeward tea trade and thereby keeping up the rate of freight, formed themselves into an association, and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Appeal from – Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow and Co HL 18-Dec-1891
An association of shipowners agreed to use various lawful means to dissuade customers from shipping their goods by the Mogul line.
Held: The agreement was lawful in the sense that it gave the Mogul Company no right to sue them. But (majority) . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Cited – Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others ChD 15-Apr-2010
The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.200479

Lonrho plc v Fayed: HL 2 Jan 1991

In a conspiracy, the intent to injure need not be the primary intent, but there must be some intent which involves the conspiring parties directing their minds towards the victim or a category of persons which would include the victim as a target to be harmed. Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed in part. Lord Bridge described the distinction between the two types of tortious conspiracy: ‘Where conspirators act with the predominant purpose of injuring the plaintiff and in fact inflict damage on him, but do nothing which would have been actionable if done by an individual acting alone, it is in the fact of their concerted action for that illegitimate purpose that the law, however anomalous it may now seem, finds a sufficient ground to condemn their action as illegal and tortious. But when conspirators intentionally injure the plaintiff and use unlawful means to do so, it is no defence for them to show that their primary purpose was to further or protect their own interests; it is sufficient to make their action tortious that the means used were unlawful.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1992] AC 448, Guardian 28-Jun-1991, [1992] 1 AC 448

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lonrho plc v Fayed CA 1989
There had been a battle to purchase the share capital of the House of Fraser which owned Harrods. Lonrho alleged that the Fayed brothers had perpetrated a fraud on the Secretary of State, and thereby secured permission to buy the company without a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
Cited – Lonrho plc v Tebbit CA 1992
The company became involved in a takeover bid. It was referred to the Monopolies Commision, and the buyer undertook not to increase his shareholding pending the report. In the meantime another buyer acquired a majority shareholding. The buyer had . .
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Another v Al Bader and Others CA 18-May-2000
The differences between tortious conspiracies where the underlying acts were either themselves unlawful or not, did not require that the conspiracy claim be merged in the underlying acts where those acts were tortious. A civil conspiracy to injure . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.200477

Lavelle v Noble: CA 18 Apr 2011

The claimants had sought damages alleging that the defendants had been involved in a fight leading to the death of their father. They appealed after losing the case, saying that the judge had wrongly excluded certain evidence.

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 441

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Evidence

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434844