This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Contracts of employment: Intention required for tort of interference with contract

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others [2005] IRLR 964 CA (0 other reports)

In Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others [2005] EWCA (Civ) 861, the Court of Appeal holds that, following Douglas v Hello [2005] EWCA (Civ) 595, only the intention to cause economic harm to the claimant as an end in itself, or the intention to cause economic harm to the claimant because it is a necessary means of achieving some ulterior motive, will suffice to prove the tort of interference with contractual relations. Mere knowledge that economic harm may or will probably result, or recklessness as to whether it does or not, are not sufficient. Further, the Court of Appeal followed a dissenting judgment in Millar v Bassey [1994] EMLR 44 in order to avoid extending the right to make a claim against a person who is not a party to a contract, which would breach the privity rule. To allow such liability to be imposed would risk inhibiting competition and entrepreneurialism.