|
|
|
Roderick Bagshaw Mansfield College Michaelmas 2000 |
|
|||||||
|
Economic Torts – Lecture 5 |
The Conspiracy Torts |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Leading cases |
Mogul Steamship v McGregor Gow [1892] AC 25, Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495, Sorrell v Smith [1925] AC 700, Crofter Hand-Woven Harris Tweed v Veitch [1942] AC 435, Lonrho v Fayed [1992] 1 AC 448 |
*** |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
**2* |
a. Two
Conspiracy Torts |
**2* |
|
|||||||
|
Names |
Conspiracy to use unlawful means |
Lawful means conspiracy Simple conspiracy
Conspiracy to injure Quinn v. Leathem conspiracy |
Names |
|
||||||
|
|
Mogul Steamship v McGregor Gow [1892] AC 25, Lord Watson, "If neither the end contemplated by the agreement, nor the means used for its attainment were contrary to law, the loss suffered by the appellants was damnum sine injuria." |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
b. Conspiracy to
use unlawful means |
|
|
|||||||
|
Mental element |
Lonrho v Fayed [1992] 1 AC 448, the predominant purpose of the conspirators does not have to be the injuring of V. "It is sufficient if the conspiracy is aimed or directed at the plaintiff, and it can reasonably be foreseen that it may injure him." (per Lord Denning MR in Lonrho v Shell, approved by Lord Bridge in Lonrho v Fayed) |
*** |
|
|||||||
|
Unlawful means |
Surzur Overseas Ltd v. Koros [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 611, Waller LJ, ‘unlawful means’ has same meaning as in the tort of interference with trade by unlawful means. - “eminently arguable that in an unlawful means conspiracy the unlawful means do not have to be actionable at the suit of the plaintiff.” |
*** |
|
|||||||
|
Does the tort have an
independent future? |
Philip Sales, ‘The Tort of Conspiracy and Civil Secondary Liability’ (1990) 49 CLJ 491, 494, footnote 19 – *not all conspirators are users Consequences of this – i. why classify as an economic tort? ii. why define unlawful means the same way? |
*** |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
c. Quinn v Leathem Conspiracy |
|
|
|||||||
|
Mental element |
Crofter Hand-Woven Harris Tweed v Veitch [1942] AC 435, conspirators must act with the predominant purpose of causing harm to V, but malice not necessary (or sufficient). |
*** |
|
|||||||
|
|
predominant purpose » no legitimate purpose ¹ no
justification |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Huntley v Thornton [1957] 1 WLR 321 – maintaining union prestige Scala Ballroom v Ratcliffe [1958] 1 WLR 1057 – advancing social welfare |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Crofter, at 471, Lord Wright, “It is not then for the respondents to justify these acts. The appellants must establish that they have been damnified by a conspiracy to injure, that is, that there was a wilful and concerted intention to injure without just cause, and consequent damage.” … "The courts have repudiated the idea that it is for them to determine whether the object of the combiners is reasonably calculated to achieve their benefit." |
|
|
|||||||
|
Protected interests |
Lonrho v Fayed (No. 5) [1994] 1 All ER 188 – (unjustified) reputation? Gulf Oil v Page [1987] 3 All ER 14 – prospective business? |
*** |
|
|||||||
|
“The Magic of Plurality” |
Lord Brampton in Quinn, “a number of actions and things not in themselves actionable or unlawful if done separately without conspiracy may, with conspiracy, become dangerous and alarming, just as a grain of gunpowder is harmless but a pound may be highly destructive, or the administration of one grain of a particular drug may be most beneficial as a medicine but administered frequently and in larger quantities with a view to harm may be fatal as a poison.” |
*** Website: http://users. ox.ac.uk/ ~mans0322/ |
|
|||||||
|
|
Lonrho v Shell [1981] 2 All ER 456, at 464, Lord Diplock, “too well-established to be discarded, however anomalous it may seem today.” |
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||