“When the House of Lords decided OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] A.C. 1, some much-needed clarity was finally brought to the economic torts. Or so we thought. Within a year, in Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network SL [2008] UKHL 19, [2008] 1 AC 1174, a differently constituted panel muddied the waters again (in several well-documented ways). But one aspect of the OBG decision concerning the unlawful means tort seemingly escaped unscathed: Lord Hoffmann’s so-called ‘dealing requirement’. According to this, D’s use of unlawful means against a third party with a view to causing loss to C will not enliven this tort unless those unlawful means also interfere with the third party’s freedom to deal with C (OBG, at [57]) …”
€
John Murphy, Floodgates Fears and the Unlawful Means Tort, Cambridge Law Journal, volume 80, issue 3, November 2021, pp 436-439, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197321000921. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 January.
First posted 2022-01-17 08:00:54
Leave a Reply