Economic torts in English law

Last updated

Economic torts in English law 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 pure economic loss, examples of an economic tort include interference with economic or business relationships.

Contents

Overview

Economic torts protect people from interference with their trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law, modern antitrust or competition law, and certain laws governing intellectual property, particularly unfair competition law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon." [1]

The principal torts can be listed as passing off, injurious falsehood and trade libel (see also Food libel laws), conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract, tortious interference (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).

Two cases demonstrated economic tort's affinity to competition and labour law. In Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [2] 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 cartel was ruled lawful and "nothing more [than] a war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade." [3] Nowadays, this would be considered a criminal cartel.

Workplace relations

In English labour law the most notable case is Taff Vale Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants . [4] The House of Lords 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 British Labour Party and the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, [5] interference with a commercial contract [6] or intimidation. [7] LegalDay Economic Torts

Inducing breach of contract

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 OBG v Allan . [8]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ p.509 Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law (2003 5th Ed.) OUP)
  2. ↑ (1889) LR 23 QBD 598
  3. ↑ per Bowen LJ, (1889) LR 23 QBD 598, 614
  4. ↑ Taff Vale Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] AC 426
  5. ↑ Quinn v Leatham [1901] AC 495
  6. ↑ Torquay Hotels Ltd v Cousins [1968]
  7. ↑ Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
  8. ↑ [2008] 1 AC 1, [2007] UKHL 21.

Related Research Articles

Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen English judge

Charles Synge Christopher Bowen, Baron Bowen, was an English judge.

United Kingdom labour law Labour rights in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

English tort law Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong.

English contract law Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1 is a leading case in English tort law and UK labour law on intentionally inflicted economic loss.

<i>Rookes v Barnard</i>

Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 is a UK labour law and English tort law case and the leading case in English law on punitive damages and was a turning point in judicial activism against trade unions.

<i>Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins</i>

Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1968] EWCA Civ 2 (BAILII) is a UK labour law case concerning the liability of a union when its members take industrial action.

<i>OBG Ltd v Allan</i>

OBG Ltd v Allan[2007] UKHL 21 was a combined appeal with Douglas v Hello! Ltd and Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and stands as the leading case on economic torts in English law.

<i>Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co</i>

Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25 is an English tort law case concerning the economic tort of conspiracy to injure. A product of its time, the courts adhered to a laissez faire doctrine allowing firms to form a cartel, which would now be seen as contrary to the Competition Act 1998.

Agency in English law is the component of UK commercial law that deals with the application of agency law in the United Kingdom, and forms a core set of rules necessary for the smooth functioning of business.

Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers’ Federation [1982] 2 All ER 67 is an English contract law case relating to duress.

Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio", meaning "no cause of action arises from a wrong". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent to which an innocent party may recover any property already conveyed through the transaction. Hence, illegality raises important questions for English unjust enrichment law.

An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.

Collective action in the United Kingdom in UK labour law is the main support for collective bargaining. Although the right to strike has attained the status, since 1906, of a fundamental human right, protected in domestic case law, statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and international law, the rules primarily codified in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 have generated significant litigation. In order for a group of workers to take strike action, they must,

Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.

RMT v Serco Ltd and ASLEF v London & Birmingham Railway [2011] EWCA Civ 226 is a joined UK labour law case, concerning the right to strike under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

<i>Watkins v Home Office and others</i> UKHL appeal with important implications for the tort of misfeasance in public office

Watkins v Home Office and others[2006] UKHL 17, was a UKHL case where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature. The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.