The defendant union officials threatened a building contractor with a strike unless he terminated a sub-contract for the supply of labour. They obviously knew that there was a contract, since they wanted it terminated, but did not know its terms and, in particular, how soon it could be terminated.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘Even if they did not know the actual terms of the contract, but had the means of knowledge – which they deliberately disregarded – that would be enough. Like the man who turns a blind eye. So here, if the officers deliberately sought to get this contract terminated, heedless of its terms, regardless whether it was terminated by breach or not, they would do wrong. For it is unlawful for a third person to procure a breach of contract knowingly, or recklessly, indifferent whether it is a breach or not.’
To be liable for the tort of unlawful interference with contractual relations, the tortfeasor must either know of the contract or turn a blind eye to its existence, and must intend to interfere with it.’
Diplock LJ set out the applicable principle: ‘The element of intent needed to constitute the tort of unlawful procurement of a breach of contract is, in my view, sufficiently established if it be proved that the defendants intended the party procured to bring the contract to an end by breach of it if there were no way of bringing it to an end lawfully. A defendant who acts with such intent runs the risk that if the contract is broken as a result of the party acting in the manner in which he is procured to act by the defendant, the defendant will be liable in damages to the other party to the contract.
On the evidence as it now stands I think that the inference is irresistible that such was the defendants’ intention. The one thing on which they were determined was that the plaintiffs’ work under their ‘labour only’ sub contract with the main contractors should cease. Whether this involved a breach of contract by the main contractors was a matter of indifference to them.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ
Citations:
[1966] 1 WLR 691, [1966] 1 All ER 1013, [1965] AC 269
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Torquay Hotel v Cousins CA 17-Dec-1968
The plaintiff contracted to buy oil for his hotel from Esso. Members of the defendant trades union blocked the deliveries of oil by Esso to the Hotel because of a trade dispute they had with the management of the hotel. The hotel sued for an . .
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 – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.222994