Lord Hoffmann in his judgment summarised the facts.
In OBG Ltd v Allan [2005] QB 762 the defendants were receivers purportedly appointed under a floating charge which is admitted to have been invalid. Acting in good faith, they took control of the claimant company's assets and undertaking. The claimant says that this was not only a trespass to its land and a conversion of its chattels but also the tort of unlawful interference with its contractual relations. It claims that the defendants are liable in damages for the value of the assets and undertaking, including the value of the contractual claims, as at the date of their appointment. Alternatively, it says the defendants are liable for the same damages in conversion.
In Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. The rival magazine Hello! published photographs which it knew to have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be a waiter or guest. OK! says that this was interference by unlawful means with its contractual or business relations or a breach of its equitable right to confidentiality in photographic images of the wedding.
In Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young [2005] IRLR 964 two employees of a property company, in breach of their contracts, diverted a development opportunity to a joint venture in which they were interested. The defendant, knowing of their duties but wrongly thinking that they would not be in breach, facilitated the acquisition by providing finance. The company says that he is liable for the tort of wrongfully inducing breach of contract.
Judgmentedit
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2010)
Elaborating on the general principle that an agent cannot be sued for interfering with contractual relationships between a principal and another contracting party, Lord Hoffmann held that invalidly appointed receivers were not liable to the company for wrongful interference with contractual relations. Such a receiver acting in good faith employs no unlawful means and intends to cause no loss. Intangible property cannot be the subject of a claim for conversion.
On the tort of inducing or procuring breach of contract, there are five requirements. (1) there must be a contract (2) the contract must be breached (3) the defendant's conduct must have procured or induced the breach (4) the defendant must have known about the breached term or turned a blind eye to it, and (5) the defendant must have actually realised that the conduct procuring the breach would have that result.[1]
^[2008] 1 AC 1, per Lord Hoffmann at [39]-[44] and per Lord Nicholls at [191]-[193] and [202].
Referencesedit
External linksedit
House of Lords judgments page
December 20, 2023
allan, 2007, ukhl, combined, appeal, with, douglas, hello, mainstream, properties, young, stands, leading, case, economic, torts, english, courthouse, lordsdecided2, 2007, 2007, citation, 2007, ukhl, 2008, 2007, 2007, 2008, comm, 2008, 2007, irlr, 608case, his. 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 OBG Ltd v AllanCourtHouse of LordsDecided2 May 2007 2007 05 02 Citation s 2007 UKHL 21 2008 1 AC 1 2007 2 WLR 920 2007 4 All ER 545 2008 1 All ER Comm 1 2008 1 LRC 279 2007 IRLR 608Case historyPrior action s OBG Ltd amp Anor v Allan amp Ors 2005 EWCA Civ 106 2005 2 WLR 1174 2005 QB 762 9 February 2005 Court membershipJudge s sittingLord Hoffmann Lord Nicholls Lord Walker Baroness Hale Lord BrownKeywordsEconomic tort Interference with a contract Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References 6 External linksFacts editLord Hoffmann in his judgment summarised the facts In OBG Ltd v Allan 2005 QB 762 the defendants were receivers purportedly appointed under a floating charge which is admitted to have been invalid Acting in good faith they took control of the claimant company s assets and undertaking The claimant says that this was not only a trespass to its land and a conversion of its chattels but also the tort of unlawful interference with its contractual relations It claims that the defendants are liable in damages for the value of the assets and undertaking including the value of the contractual claims as at the date of their appointment Alternatively it says the defendants are liable for the same damages in conversion In Douglas v Hello Ltd 2006 QB 125 the magazine OK contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden The rival magazine Hello published photographs which it knew to have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be a waiter or guest OK says that this was interference by unlawful means with its contractual or business relations or a breach of its equitable right to confidentiality in photographic images of the wedding In Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young 2005 IRLR 964 two employees of a property company in breach of their contracts diverted a development opportunity to a joint venture in which they were interested The defendant knowing of their duties but wrongly thinking that they would not be in breach facilitated the acquisition by providing finance The company says that he is liable for the tort of wrongfully inducing breach of contract Judgment editThis section needs expansion You can help by adding to it March 2010 Elaborating on the general principle that an agent cannot be sued for interfering with contractual relationships between a principal and another contracting party Lord Hoffmann held that invalidly appointed receivers were not liable to the company for wrongful interference with contractual relations Such a receiver acting in good faith employs no unlawful means and intends to cause no loss Intangible property cannot be the subject of a claim for conversion On the tort of inducing or procuring breach of contract there are five requirements 1 there must be a contract 2 the contract must be breached 3 the defendant s conduct must have procured or induced the breach 4 the defendant must have known about the breached term or turned a blind eye to it and 5 the defendant must have actually realised that the conduct procuring the breach would have that result 1 See also editEconomic torts in English law Conversion law Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins 1969 2 Ch 106Notes edit 2008 1 AC 1 per Lord Hoffmann at 39 44 and per Lord Nicholls at 191 193 and 202 References editExternal links editHouse of Lords judgments page Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title OBG Ltd v Allan amp oldid 1147765915, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
