The parties competed against each other in bidding for a public company. The plaintiff’s bid was referred to the Monopolies Commission, and they undertook to purchase no further shares. The defendant’s bid was not so referred, and the plaintiff claimed that the defednant had influenced the Secretary of State’s decision by fraudulent misrepresentations, and claimed in damages for wrongful interference in trade. They appealed an order striking out the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause.
Held: In such an action it was necessary to demonstrate that the unlawful act complained of was directed at the plaintiff, and was intended to cause him harm. The precise ambit of the tort remained unsettled, and would be better resolved after the factual circumstances had been established. Appeal allowed.
Citations:
[1990] AC 479
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lonhro plc v Fayed 19-Jul-1988
The plaintiff and defendant competed in bidding for a public company. The plaintiff having been restrained by the Secretary of State, alleged that the defendant had used a fraudulent misrepresentation to achieve this.
Held: It was not a tort . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lonhro plc v Fayed HL 28-Jun-1991
The parties had competed in bidding to acquire a public company. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used a fraudulent misrepresentation to the Secretary of State to achieve an advantage.
Held: To establish the tort of conspiracy to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.223002