97:(such as interference with economic relations or unlawful interference with trade), and watching and besetting. These torts represent the common law's historical attempt to balance the need to protect claimants against those who inflict economic harm and the wider need to allow effective, even aggressive, competition (including competition between employers and their workers).
279:
2 KB 545, Romer LJ, “I think that regard might be had to the nature of the contract broken; the position of the parties to the contract; the grounds for the breach; the means employed to procure the breach; the relation of the person procuring the breach to the person who breaks the contract; and I
280:
think also to the object of the person in procuring the breach.” Lord James, AC 238 at 252 “The fact that their motives were good in the interests of those they moved to action does not form any answer to those who have suffered from the unlawful act.”
157:
Several of the economic torts in
English law, in particular inducing breach of contract and "tortious interference" (otherwise known as causing loss by unlawful means), have been reviewed and clarified by the House of Lords in the 2007 case of
190:
AC 495, at 510, Lord
Macnaghten “a violation of legal right committed knowingly is a cause of action ... it is a violation of a right to interfere with contractual relations recognised by law if there be no sufficient justification for the
181:
AC 239, “It would be idle to sue the workmen, the individual wrong-doers, even if it were practicable to do so. Their counsellors and protectors, the real authors of the mischief, would be safe from legal
215:
1 WLR 691, Lord
Denning MR, “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.”
130:
295:
239:
2 AC 570, Lord
Diplock, "all prevention of due performance of a primary obligation ... even though no secondary obligation to make monetarycompensation thereupon came into existence."
138:
thought that unions should be liable in tort for helping workers to go on strike for better pay and conditions. But it riled workers so much that it led to the creation of the
231:
Ch 556, Roxburgh J, “in my judgment, any active step taken by a defendant, having knowledge of the covenant, by which he facilitates a breach of covenant is enough.”
102:
110:
was ruled lawful and "nothing more a war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade." Nowadays, this would be considered a criminal cartel.
30:
refer to a species of civil wrong which protects the economic wealth that a person will gain in the ordinary course of business. Proving compensation for
106:
the plaintiffs argued they had been driven from the
Chinese tea market by a 'shipping conference', that had acted together to underprice them. But this
147:
275:
177:
66:
law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon."
227:
235:
439:
211:
203:
444:
434:
259:
195:
146:. Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, interference with a commercial contract or intimidation.
243:
42:
Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of
219:
290:
143:
407:
John Finnis, 'Intention in Tort Law', ch 10 in D Owen ed, Philosophical
Foundations of Tort Law (OUP 1995)
429:
94:
59:
267:
251:
139:
74:
90:
86:
63:
46:
and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective
43:
31:
17:
34:, examples of an economic tort include interference with economic or business relationships.
186:
82:
55:
135:
423:
119:
169:
100:
Two cases demonstrated economic tort's affinity to competition and labour law. In
160:
78:
70:
125:
47:
51:
336:
107:
416:
Simister & Chan, “One Tort or Two?” (2004) 63 Cambridge LJ 132
349:
Taff Vale
Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
131:
Taff Vale
Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
296:
Trade Union and Labour
Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
276:
Glamorgan Coal
Company v South Wales Miners Federation
178:
South Wales Miners’ Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co Ltd
103:Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co
8:
228:British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori
306:
69:The principal torts can be listed as
7:
25:
236:Merkur Island Shipping v Laughton
315:Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law
18:Inducement of breach of contract
255:Entertainment & Media LR 44
212:Emerald Construction v Lowthian
413:Bagshaw, (1998) 18 Ox JLS 729)
1:
204:Mainstream Properties v Young
58:, and certain laws governing
28:Economic torts in English law
410:Weir, Economic Torts (1997))
373:Torquay Hotels Ltd v Cousins
339:, (1889) LR 23 QBD 598, 614
260:Edwin Hill v First National
196:Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3)
153:Inducing breach of contract
461:
244:Torquay Hotel Co v Cousins
117:
128:the most notable case is
220:Camden Nominees v Forcey
291:Trade Disputes Act 1906
148:LegalDay Economic Torts
144:Trade Disputes Act 1906
173:(1853) 2 E & B 216
95:tortious interference
60:intellectual property
326:(1889) LR 23 QBD 598
140:British Labour Party
317:(2003 5th Ed.) OUP)
114:Workplace relations
75:injurious falsehood
440:Economy of England
91:breach of contract
64:unfair competition
44:restraint of trade
32:pure economic loss
395:1 AC 1, UKHL 21.
268:Brimelow v Casson
16:(Redirected from
452:
445:Economy of Wales
435:English tort law
396:
393:
387:
384:Rookes v Barnard
381:
375:
370:
364:
358:
352:
346:
340:
333:
327:
324:
318:
311:
89:, inducement of
21:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
451:
450:
449:
420:
419:
404:
399:
394:
390:
382:
378:
371:
367:
361:Quinn v Leatham
359:
355:
347:
343:
334:
330:
325:
321:
312:
308:
304:
287:
252:Millar v Bassey
187:Quinn v Leathem
155:
122:
116:
83:Food libel laws
62:, particularly
56:competition law
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
458:
456:
448:
447:
442:
437:
432:
422:
421:
418:
417:
414:
411:
408:
403:
400:
398:
397:
388:
376:
365:
353:
341:
328:
319:
305:
303:
300:
299:
298:
293:
286:
283:
282:
281:
272:
264:
256:
248:
240:
232:
224:
216:
208:
200:
192:
191:interference.”
183:
174:
154:
151:
136:House of Lords
115:
112:
39:
36:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
457:
446:
443:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
427:
425:
415:
412:
409:
406:
405:
401:
392:
389:
385:
380:
377:
374:
369:
366:
362:
357:
354:
350:
345:
342:
338:
332:
329:
323:
320:
316:
310:
307:
301:
297:
294:
292:
289:
288:
284:
278:
277:
273:
270:
269:
265:
262:
261:
257:
254:
253:
249:
246:
245:
241:
238:
237:
233:
230:
229:
225:
222:
221:
217:
214:
213:
209:
206:
205:
201:
198:
197:
193:
189:
188:
184:
182:proceedings.”
180:
179:
175:
172:
171:
167:
166:
165:
163:
162:
152:
150:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
132:
127:
121:
120:UK labour law
113:
111:
109:
105:
104:
98:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
67:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
37:
35:
33:
29:
19:
430:Economic law
391:
383:
379:
372:
368:
360:
356:
348:
344:
331:
322:
314:
309:
274:
266:
263:3 All ER 801
258:
250:
242:
234:
226:
218:
210:
207:EWCA Civ 861
202:
199:EWCA Civ 595
194:
185:
176:
170:Lumley v Gye
168:
159:
156:
129:
123:
101:
99:
68:
41:
27:
26:
161:OBG v Allan
124:In English
79:trade libel
71:passing off
424:Categories
402:References
126:labour law
118:See also:
87:conspiracy
81:(see also
48:labour law
52:antitrust
50:, modern
337:Bowen LJ
285:See also
271:1 Ch 302
247:2 Ch 106
142:and the
38:Overview
386:AC 1129
363:AC 495
351:AC 426
313:p.509
223:Ch 352
134:. The
108:cartel
302:Notes
335:per
77:and
85:),
54:or
426::
164:.
93:,
73:,
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.