Number 599 16 May 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Economic Torts Unravelled Hello! is not just a case about celebrity exclusives and tabloid spoilers, but has important implications for the protection of any commercially valuable information. On 2 May 2007, the House of Lords handed down its judgment in respect of three cases involving economic torts: OBG Ltd and others v Allan and others (OBG) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others (Mainstream) Douglas and another v Hello! Ltd and others (Hello!) The three cases were heard consecutively and were dealt with in a single judgment because of the overlapping issues of law. Economic torts is an obscure and esoteric branch of the law, which, over the years, has been characterised by inconsistent judicial observation and conflicting academic opinion. Consequently, the law was in a mess and, in making its judgment in OBG, Mainstream and Hello!, the House of Lords had to pick its way through approximately 350 reported cases and academic writings. The result is a comprehensive judgment that provides helpful guidance and clarification in respect of the following economic torts: Interference with contractual relations Causing loss by unlawful means Inducing breach of contract Conversion Breach of confidence Separating the Torts A Question of Intention Since the decision in DC Thomson & Co Ltd -v- Deakin in 1952, the tort of causing loss by unlawful means and the tort of inducing breach of contract have been treated as two species of the wider tort of interference with contractual relations. However, the House of Lords has now ruled that they should be treated as separate economic torts, each having different conditions for liability. Both torts have been described as torts of intention, but the results that the defendant must have intended in each tort are different. Inducing Breach of Contract The test for establishing liability for inducing breach of contract was first set out in Lumley -v- Gye (1853) which applied the general principle that a party which procures another to commit a wrong incurs liability as an accessory. In this case, the particular wrong is the breach of contract and the liability of the party procuring the breach of contract is secondary to the liability of the contracting party. The result that the defendant must have intended is the breach of contract. It does not matter if the defendant did not intend to cause damage or even thought that the breach might, in some way, benefit Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted through an affiliated multinational partnership. Under New York s Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding our conduct under New York s Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 885 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-4834, Phone: +1.212.906.1200. Copyright 2007 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.
the claimant. The breach of contract must be an end in itself or, at least, the means to an end. If the breach is merely a foreseeable consequence of the defendant s action, then it cannot be said to have been intended. Causing Loss by Unlawful Means In the tort of causing loss by unlawful means, there is no wrong for which the defendant is liable as accessory: a defendant s liability is primary for intentionally causing the claimant loss by unlawfully interfering with the liberty of others. If, for example, the unlawful means is a threat directed at a potential customer, the immediate cause of the loss would be the decision of the potential customer to submit to the threat and take his business elsewhere. The result that the defendant must have intended is damage to the claimant (usually as a means of enhancing the defendant s own economic position). Damage to economic expectations is sufficient, so an intention to interfere with contractual rights is not necessary. Unlawful actions which interfere with the freedom of a third party to deal with the claimant, however, are required, so neither actions that are detrimental to the claimant but are nevertheless lawful, nor actions which are unlawful but do not affect the third party s freedom to deal with the claimant, are sufficient to establish liability. OBG The Facts In 1992, OBG had become insolvent. A creditor of OBG, which had taken an assignment from a third party of a debenture secured by a floating charge over OBG s assets and undertaking, appointed the defendants as administrative receivers under the floating charge. However, OBG had owed nothing to the third party and no secured debt was assigned to the debenture. The creditor was not, therefore, entitled to appoint receivers, but it and the receivers believed in good faith that the appointment was valid. The receivers accordingly took control of OBG s assets and undertaking on 9 June 1992. OBG claimed that by their doing so, the receivers became liable in damages for the value of its assets and undertaking as of that date. The cause of action was, with respect to OBG s land and chattels, trespass and conversion and, with respect to its contractual claims, wrongful interference with contractual relations. OBG s alternative claim was that the defendants had converted its entire assets and undertaking, including the contractual claims. The defendants admitted liability for trespass to the land and conversion of the chattels, but denied that they had interfered with the contractual relations. To OBG s alternative claim, the defendants answer was that conversion is a tort against chattels not against contractual claims. The judge at first instance found that OBG had a cause of action for interference with contractual relations, but dismissed the alternative claim for conversion of contractual rights. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the conversion claim, but reversed the finding with respect to interference with contractual relations. Interference with Contractual Relations Applying the analysis summarised above, the House of Lords found that there were only two possible causes of action: inducing breach of contract and causing loss by unlawful means. With respect to the first, there was no breach or non-performance of any contract to which accessory liability could attach. As to the second, the defendants had neither employed unlawful means nor intended to damage OBG. Therefore, the requirements for liability under neither tort was satisfied. Conversion Conversion is a tort of strict liability that applies to the wrongful interference with tangible personal property: anyone who does something with someone else s goods or chattels that is inconsistent
with the rights of the owner, whether knowingly or innocently, is liable for the loss caused by his conduct. OBG s claim for conversion of its contractual rights required an extension of this tort to encompass choses in action (i.e. intangible property rights) as well as tangible property. The House of Lords found that there was no authority for extending the tort to impose strict liability either for interference with choses in action or for pure economic loss (liability for which is extremely limited under English law). The House of Lords therefore dismissed OBG s claim. Mainstream The Facts In breach of their contractual and fiduciary duties to obtain property for their employer, two employees of Mainstream, a property development company, diverted a development opportunity to a joint venture consisting of themselves and a third party, Mr. De Winter, who financed the project. The question before the House of Lords was whether Mr. De Winter was liable for inducing the two employees to breach their contracts. The court of first instance found that, although his involvement was causative, since Mr. De Winter had raised the question of conflict of interest with the two employees and had been given assurances that there was none, Mr. De Winter did not intend to procure a breach of contract. This finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Decision The House of Lords focused on Mr. De Winter s intention and found that, since he had honestly believed that assisting the employees with the joint venture would not involve them in the commission of breaches of contract, he had not intended to cause a breach of contract and could not, therefore, be liable for inducing breach of contract. Equally, since Mr. De Winter neither intended to cause loss to the claimant, nor used any unlawful means, he could not be liable for having caused loss by unlawful means. Hello! Of the three cases, because of its celebrity connections, Hello! has undoubtedly been the most high profile. However, this is not just a case about celebrity exclusives and tabloid spoilers, but has important implications for the protection of any commercially valuable information. The Facts In November 2000, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones (the Douglases) entered into a contract with OK! magazine for the exclusive rights to publish photographs of their forthcoming wedding. OK! paid the Douglases 1 million for the rights in preference to its rival, Hello! magazine. The Douglases agreed to engage a photographer and to supply OK! with photographs of their choice. The Douglases also agreed to use their best efforts to ensure that no one else would take any photographs at their wedding. Despite the efforts made by the Douglases, a freelance photographer infiltrated the wedding and took photographs which he then sold to Hello! magazine. OK! magazine obtained an injunction restraining Hello! magazine from publishing the photographs, but the injunction was discharged by the Court of Appeal and Hello! magazine published the photographs the following day, just hours after OK! magazine had published the official photographs. Also on the same day, some of the unauthorised photographs were published, without Hello! magazine objecting, in various national newspapers. OK! magazine sued Hello! magazine for breach of confidence and for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means. Breach of Confidence The court of first instance held Hello! magazine liable for breach of
confidence, finding that the three criteria from Coco -v- A. N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] had been satisfied: The information (i.e. the photographs of the wedding) had the necessary quality of confidence. The information had been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. There had been an unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision at first instance on the bases that the obligation of confidence for the benefit of OK! magazine attached only to the photographs which the Douglases had authorised and that OK! magazine did not have the benefit of an obligation of confidence in relation to any other photographs. By a majority of three to two, the House of Lords restored the decision of the court of first instance. Its reasoning was that since OK! magazine had paid 1 million for the benefit of the obligation of confidence imposed upon everyone who attended the Douglases wedding in respect of any photographs of the wedding, absent any policy or conceptual reason to the contrary, OK! magazine should have the benefit of that obligation. The House of Lords considered that the Court of Appeal s analysis that the obligation of confidence imposed in favour of OK! magazine only attached to the photographs provided by the Douglases did not make commercial sense. The only way in which OK! magazine s commercial interests could be protected was by imposing an obligation of confidence in respect of any photographs of the wedding. The House of Lords focused on the 1 million and why it was paid and was not distracted by the concepts of privacy and personal information. Put simply, the House of Lords considered that OK! magazine s claim was to protect commercially confidential information and what mattered was that the Douglases had been in a position to impose an obligation of confidence and were in control of the information. Causing Loss by Unlawful Means In view of its conclusion that OK! magazine was entitled to sue Hello! magazine for breach of confidence, the House of Lords did not examine in detail OK! magazine s alternative claim that Hello! magazine had caused it to suffer a loss by unlawful means. However, the House of Lords did observe that it would have held that Hello! magazine had the necessary intention to cause loss. It stated that it would have rejected Hello! magazine s argument that it did not intend to injure OK! magazine by spoiling its exclusive but only intended to protect itself from the damage it might suffer as a result of having lost the exclusive. Its reasoning was that the injury inflicted on OK! magazine was the means by which Hello! magazine protected its own position and not just a foreseeable consequence of the same. The House of Lords also stated that it would have held that Hello! magazine had not interfered by unlawful means with the actions of the Douglases, since it had not done anything to obstruct the liberty of the Douglases either to deal with OK! magazine or to perform their obligations under the agreement. For this reason, the House of Lords noted that the concept of intention in the tort of causing loss by unlawful means should not be given such an artificially narrow meaning as to enable anyone who has used unlawful means to injure a third party to say that he only intended to protect himself from loss. Implications The separation of the general tort of interference with contractual relations into two distinct torts has clarified this obscure but important branch of the law. The intention-based tests for liability for causing loss by unlawful means and inducing breach of contract are logical and relatively clear. Further, establishing the principle that using unlawful means to enhance one s own position and using
unlawful means to damage another person s position can be two sides of the same coin, closes a loophole by which defendants have previously sought to avoid liability. However, it seems that defendants will still be able to avoid liability for inducing breach of contract if they can prove that they genuinely did not believe that their actions would induce a breach. The House of Lords decision in relation to breach of confidence has clear implications for the media and should deter the paparazzi from seeking to profit from infiltration of celebrities exclusive events. However, by extrapolation, the photographs of the Douglases wedding could equally have been any confidential information that another party was willing to pay for and the House of Lords decision suggests that the existence and scope of the obligation of confidence attaching to a particular piece of information can, to a great extent, be determined by its commercial value and the level of control over the information held by the person imparting it. These criteria can be applied to any confidential information of commercial value, such as business know how or market-sensitive information, and the implication is that the greater the value of the information, the greater the obligation of confidence attaching to it. As to the tort of conversion, it is unsurprising that the OBG s claim was dismissed and the House of Lords has reaffirmed that conversion can only apply to tangible personal property.
Office locations: Barcelona Brussels Chicago Frankfurt Hamburg Hong Kong London Los Angeles Madrid Milan Moscow Munich New Jersey New York Northern Virginia Orange County Paris San Diego San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Washington, D.C. Client Alert is published by Latham & Watkins as a news reporting service to clients and other friends. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorneys listed below or the attorney whom you normally consult. A complete list of our Client Alerts can be found on our Web site at www.lw.com. If you wish to update your contact details or customise the information you receive from Latham & Watkins, please visit www.lw.com/globalcontacts.aspx to subscribe to our global client mailings program. If you have any questions about this Client Alert, please contact John A. Hull, Philip A. Clifford or Mark P. Clarke in our London office or any of the following attorneys. Barcelona José Luis Blanco +34-902-882-222 Brussels Jean Paul Poitras +32 (0)2 788 60 00 Chicago Janet Malloy Link Kenneth G. Schuler +1-312-876-7700 Frankfurt Bernd-Wilhelm Schmitz +49-69-60 62 60 00 Hamburg Ulrich Börger +49-40-41 40 30 Hong Kong Joseph A. Bevash +852-2522-7886 London John A. Hull Philip A. Clifford Mark P. Clarke +44-20-7710-1000 Los Angeles Mark A. Flagel Robert W. Perrin Daniel S. Schecter +1-213-485-1234 Madrid José Luis Blanco +34-902-882-222 Milan David Miles +39 02-3046-2000 Moscow Anya Goldin +7-495-785-1234 Munich Jörg Kirchner +49 89 20 80 3 8000 New Jersey Alan E. Kraus +1-973-639-1234 New York James E. Brandt Blair Connelly +1-212-906-1200 Northern Virginia Erick L. Bernthal +1-703-456-1000 Orange County Jon D. Anderson +1-714-540-1235 Paris Christophe Clarenc Patrick Dunaud +33 (0)1 40 62 20 00 San Diego Michael J. Weaver +1-619-236-1234 San Francisco James K. Lynch Stephen Stublarec Peter A. Wald +1-415-391-0600 Shanghai Rowland Cheng +86 21 6101-6000 Silicon Valley Patrick E. Gibbs +1-650-328-4600 Singapore Mark A. Nelson +65-6536-1161 Tokyo Bernard E. Nelson +81-3-6212-7800 Washington, D.C. Everett C. Johnson, Jr. Abid R. Qureshi +1-202-637-2200