J - Joint tortfeasors
15/5/24
LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV v AHMED [2024] UKSC 17
Considers when company directors can be liable for torts committed by the company (here trade mark infringement). The directors had not committed any tort in their own right as they only acted on behalf of the company, but there is no special principle that directors acting as such cannot be liable in tort [33]. The rule in Said v Butt (1920) (agent not liable for procuring breach of contract with principal) applies if an agent acting with authority procures a breach of contract by the principal [54]. This does not prevent an agent being jointly liable with the principal for procuring or assisting the principal to commit a tort [61]. A person who knowingly procures another to commit an actionable wrong is jointly liable in tort with that other for the wrong [135]. A person who assists another to commit a tort is jointly liable for the tort if the assistance is more than trivial and is given pursuant to a common design between the parties [136]. The person procuring or assisting must know (or have blind eye knowledge of) the essential facts which make the act wrongful. The defendants did not have that knowledge [143]. Had they done so, an account of profits could have been ordered for the profits they (rather than the company) had made from the wrongful conduct [169] but on the facts, they had not made any such profits.
18/5/20
ADAMS v OPTIONS SIPP UK LLP [2020] EWHC 1229 (Ch)
The provider/administrator of self-invested pension plans which operated on an execution-only basis was not liable to the claimant investor for the losses claimed to have been suffered by entering into a manifestly unsuitable underlying investment within a SIPP "wrapper". Considers the scheme of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 [75] and the meaning of advising on and arranging investments [83]. On the facts, a mere introduction was insufficient to amount to arranging an investment [117]. Nor had advice been given by the introducer in respect of the SIPP [125]. Recommending the SIPP was insufficient [126]. There had been no breach of the requirement to act fairly in the client’s best interests (COBS r 2.1.1) because the defendant undertook no duty to advise and it was the underlying investments, not the SIPP, which had been unsuitable [157]. The defendant had not assisted in the commission of a tort by the introducer and was not therefore liable as a joint tortfeasor [169].
10/11/15
Claims of passing off and trade mark infringement were made out. The second defendant, who owned and controlled the defendant company was jointly liable with it [37].
4/3/15
SEA SHEPHERD UK v FISH & FISH LTD [2015] UKSC 10
Joint liability in tort can arise where a defendant assisted the principal tortfeasor in the commission of tortious acts. For this it must be proved that the defendant acted in a way which furthered the commission of the tort by the principal, that the defendant did so in pursuance of a common design with that person, and the defendant did or secured the doing of the acts which had constituted a tort. The accessory is liable for the tortious act of the principal because the law treats him as a party to it. The accessory does not need to have joined in doing the very act that constituted the tort. On the facts a majority of the court held that the judge at first instance had been entitled to find that the acts of the defendants played no effective part in the commission of the tort (conduct causing damage to a fishing vessel).
5/7/13
CONCEPT OIL SERVICES LTD v EN-GIN GROUP LLP [2013] EWHC 1897 (Comm)
Considers principles of deceit [34], joint liability in tort [44] and conspiracy [49] in a case where false assurances were given that the company with which the claimant dealt would remain English registered.
16/5/13
FISH & FISH LTD v SEA SHEPHERD UK [2013] EWCA Civ 544
Reviews principles on which a defendant can be held liable as a joint tortfeasor for acting in furtherance of a common design [40]. On the facts the defendant was liable for damage caused to a vessel as part of a global campaign against fishing bluefin tuna.
18/1/13
GLADMAN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES v FISHER HARGREAVES PROCTOR [2013] EWHC 25 (Ch)
Marketing agents could not be liable to the claimant for misrepresentations alleged to have been made in sales particulars because the claimant had previously settled a claim against the vendors for whom the agents had acted. The vendor, as principal, and the agents would have been liable as joint tortfeasors’ for any such misrepresentations, and the release of the claim against the vendors released the agents too because there was no express or implied reservation of rights against the agents. If the agents and the vendors had only been concurrently (not jointly) liable for the same damage, the payment made under the settlement would not have been regarded as fully satisfying the claimant’s loss. But in any event the claim against the agents was also an abuse of process because it could and should have been brought in the earlier action.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer