DOCSLIB.ORG

Approved Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Approved Judgment Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2006 (Ch) Case No: HC-2011-000064 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Competition Appeal Tribunal Victoria House, London WC1A Date: 02/08/2017 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ROTH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : (1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH (2) THE NHS BUSINESS SERVICES AUTHORITY Claimants - and - (1) SERVIER LABORATORIES LIMITED (2) SERVIER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (3) LES LABORATOIRES SERVIER SAS (4) SERVIER SAS Defendants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JON TURNER QC, DAVID DRAKE & PHILIP WOOLFE (instructed by Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants KELYN BACON QC & DANIEL PICCININ (instructed by Bristows LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants Hearing dates: 18 & 19 July 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. MR JUSTICE ROTH MR JUSTICE ROTH NHS v Servier Approved Judgment Mr Justice Roth: Introduction 1. This is an application to strike out one of several distinct grounds of the claim in these proceedings. In particular, the defendants (to whom I shall refer collectively as “Servier” save where it is necessary to distinguish between them) seek an order which would remove from the claim the tort of causing loss by unlawful means, sometimes also called the intentional interference tort. For convenience, I shall refer to it simply as the tort of unlawful means. At the conclusion of the argument, I informed the parties that I would grant Servier’s application, for reasons to be delivered later. This judgment sets out my reasons for that decision. 2. The proceedings in which this arises concern the pharmaceutical drug perindopril, a prescription only medicine which Servier sold in the UK under the brand name “Coversyl”. It is an ACE (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme) inhibitor used in the treatment of hypertension and cardiac insufficiency. Supply of Coversyl, protected by European patents with a UK designation, began on the UK market in about 1990, after Servier obtained a UK marketing authorisation. One of those patents was in respect of a process of industrial synthesis of perindopril: EP No 0 308 341 (“341 Patent”). 3. The present action relates to a further patent which was granted to the 3rd defendant (“LLS”) for the alpha crystalline form of the perindopril salt: EP No 1 296 947 (“947 Patent”) which had, among others, a UK designation. The application for the 947 Patent was filed at the EPO on 6 July 2001 and the patent was granted on 4 February 2004. The patent was opposed by ten opponents and following the hearing of the opposition on 27 July 2006, the Opposition Division of the EPO decided to maintain the patent, for reasons which it gave on 21 September 2006. The 1st defendant (“SLL”) was the exclusive licensee under the UK designation of the 947 Patent. 4. In August 2006, LLS and SLL obtained an interim injunction in the Patents Court against the generic supplier Apotex, which had launched a generic version of perindopril in the UK, for alleged infringement of the 947 Patent: [2006] EWHC 2137 (Pat). 5. By a judgment dated 11 July 2007, Pumfrey J held that the 947 Patent was invalid since it lacked novelty, or alternatively was obvious over the 341 Patent: [2007] EWHC 1538 (Pat). On 28 April 2008, for reasons which it gave on 9 May 2008, the Court of Appeal dismissed Servier’s appeal against that decision: [2008] EWCA Civ 445. Those decisions of course only applied to the UK designation of the European patent. 6. In the meantime, an appeal was proceeding before the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. By a decision dated 6 May 2009, the Board of Appeal revoked the European 947 Patent. 7. The present proceedings were commenced in 2011. Originally, along with the present 1st claimant, the Secretary of State for Health, and the 2nd claimant, the authority responsible for making reimbursement to pharmacists in England for prescriptions, there were a further 156 claimants: ten Strategic Health Authorities (“SHAs”) and 146 Primary Care Trusts (“PCTs”) forming part of the English National Health Service MR JUSTICE ROTH NHS v Servier Approved Judgment (“NHS”). Pursuant to a fundamental reorganisation of the NHS, those SHAs and PCTs were abolished with effect from 1 April 2013 and their rights of action vested in the 1st claimant. I shall refer to the claimants simply as “the English Health Authorities” and to these proceedings as the English Health Authorities’ action. 8. The action alleges a series of infringements of both EU and UK competition law for which the English Health Authorities claim that Servier is liable in damages (“the competition law claims”). In particular, it is alleged that Servier entered into a series of agreements with generic manufacturers and suppliers not to enter the market with a generic version of perindopril and/or to withdraw their patent challenges; and that those agreements constituted an infringement of Art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) and/or sect 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA”), and also an abuse of a dominant position which Servier held in the UK, and therefore an infringement of Art 102 TFEU and/or sect 18 CA. Moreover, the claim alleges that LLS obtained the grant of the 947 Patent, and further successfully defended it in opposition proceedings, by misleading or dishonest misrepresentations made to the EPO; and that LLS and SLL further repeated or relied on those misrepresentations in obtaining interim relief in the English courts. That alleged conduct, which is expressly pleaded as constituting deceit, is said to be a separate abuse of Servier’s dominant position and thus contrary to Art 102 TFEU and/or sect 18 CA. Further and alternative grounds of abuse are alleged on the basis that the conduct of LLS and/or SLL by which they “obtained, defended and enforced” the rights in relation to the 947 Patent was unreasonable or an abuse of process, and that Servier was “not transparent in its provision of relevant information to the EPO and courts”. However, in addition to these competition law claims, the deceit (but not the other alleged grounds of abuse) is alleged to give rise to a right of action in tort for unlawful means. As I understand it, this tort claim is alleged only against LLS. 9. Separate proceedings have also been commenced against Servier concerning perindopril by the Welsh Ministers and others: claim no HC-2012-000188; and by the Scottish Ministers together with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for Northern Ireland, and others: claim no HC-2012-000189. I shall refer to these, respectively, as the Welsh Health Authorities’ action and the Scottish/NI Health Authorities’ action. Both those actions are similar to the English Health Authorities’ action in alleging breaches of Art 101 TFEU/sect 2 CA and Art 102 TFEU/sect 18 CA. However, neither goes beyond a competition claim to include a claim for the unlawful means tort. 10. By order of Henderson J (as he then was) of 26 February 2016, the English Health Authorities’ action, the Welsh Health Authorities’ action and the Scottish/NI Health Authorities’ action will be tried together and they are subject to joint case management. 11. Following the commencement of these proceedings, on 9 July 2014, the EU Commission adopted a decision (“the EC Decision”) addressed to SLL, LLS and the 4th defendant finding that they had contravened Arts 101 and 102 TFEU by reason of various agreements made with generic manufacturers and suppliers involving patent settlements or the acquisition of technology, and imposing very substantial fines: Case AT.39612 Perindopril (Servier). The EC Decision has been appealed by the relevant Servier companies to the EU General Court: Case T-691/14 Servier v Commission. An oral hearing in the appeal was held in June 2017 and judgment is pending. There MR JUSTICE ROTH NHS v Servier Approved Judgment is of course the possibility of a further appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). 12. Accordingly, the English Health Authorities’ action now comprises: a) what has become effectively a follow-on claim as regards Art 101/sect 2, and also as regards Art 102/sect 18 insofar as concerns the infringement of Art 102 found by the EC Decision; b) a stand-alone claim as regards the additional grounds of abuse of dominance based on conduct before the EPO and the English court, but if the General Court (or on further appeal, the CJEU) should annul the EC Decision as regards the finding that Servier was dominant, that claim will very probably fall away since the national court cannot take a decision inconsistent with the decision of the European Courts; and c) a free-standing claim for the tort of unlawful means. 13. It is only claim (c) which is the subject of the present application. Since there is no parallel claim in the Welsh Health Authorities’ action or the Scottish/NI Health Authorities’ action, the claimants in those actions have taken no part in this hearing. However, Mr Turner QC, appearing for the English Health Authorities, emphasised that the tort claim is important for his clients since it is not dependent on a finding of dominance and it also goes back earlier in time than the competition law infringements found by the EU Commission, which started in late 2004. The unlawful means claim 14. It is necessary to explain the way this part of the claimants’ case is framed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Corrective Justice and the Unlawful Means Tort: Is There a Right to Trade?
    Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies Volume 28 Article 34 1-1-2019 Corrective Justice and the Unlawful Means Tort: Is There A Right to Trade? Kerry Sun Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/djls Part of the Law and Economics Commons, and the Torts Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Kerry Sun, "Corrective Justice and the Unlawful Means Tort: Is There A Right to Trade?" (2019) 28 Dal J Leg Stud 1. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vol. 28 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 167 CORRECTIVE JUSTICE AND THE UNLAWFUL MEANS TORT: IS THERE A RIGHT TO TRADE? Kerry Sun* ABSTRACT This paper investigates the extent to which the theory of corrective justice can account for the purpose, structure, and elements of the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations. It considers various proposed accounts of the tort, contending that the tort cannot be justified as an exception to the privity doctrine, a response to the defendant’s attempts to assert indirect control over the plaintiff, or a form of liability stretching. Extending a proposed account of the tort based on the theory of abuse of rights, this paper develops the idea of a “right to trade” that is founded on the conception of rights, remedies, and the systematicity of the legal order underlying corrective justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause
    HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2007–08 [2008] UKHL 19 on appeal from: [2007] EWCA Civ 39 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Total Network SL (a company incorporated in Spain) (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants) v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (suing as Commissioners of Customs and Excise) (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) Appellate Committee Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Lord Mance Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Counsel Appellants: Respondents: John Martin QC Charles Flint QC Philip Coppel Tom Weisselberg (Instructed by Solicitor Her Majesty’s Revenue and (Instructed by Byrne and Partners) Customs) Hearing date: 26 & 27 NOVEMBER 2007 ON WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH 2008 HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Total Network SL (a company incorporated in Spain) (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants) v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (suing as Commissioners of Customs and Excise) (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) [2008] UKHL 19 LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. The issue in this case is whether the Commissioners can maintain a civil claim for damages under the tort of unlawful means conspiracy against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. Two questions need to be considered. The first is whether it is open to the Commissioners to maintain a cause of action in damages at common law as a means of recovering VAT from a person who has not been made accountable or otherwise liable for that tax by Parliament. The second is whether, if so, it is an essential requirement of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy that the conduct which is said to amount to the unlawful means should give rise to a separate action in tort against at least one of the conspirators.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Torts and English Law: an Uncertain Future
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 95 | Issue 4 Article 3 2007 The conomicE Torts and English Law: An Uncertain Future Hazel Carty Manchester University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Common Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Carty, Hazel (2007) "The cE onomic Torts and English Law: An Uncertain Future," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 95 : Iss. 4 , Article 3. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol95/iss4/3 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES The Economic Torts and English Law: An Uncertain Future Hazel Carty' I. INTRODUCTION A. The Economic Torts Outlined There is no over-arching tort of unfair competition or misappropriation in English common law. Rather, when excessive competitive practices are al- leged, the aggrieved party must identify a specific tort (or torts) that cover the harm done to them. The causes of action most appropriate where unfair trading is the issue are the so-called "economic torts."' These causes of action comprise the torts of simple conspiracy, unlawful conspiracy, induc- ing breach of contract, intimidation, unlawful interference with trade, and malicious falsehoodA The list also includes the important tort of passing off which, unlike the others, is not a tort of intention.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Economic Torts and Anti-Secondary Boycott Laws in Australia
    INHIBITING ECONOMIC COERCION BY GROUPS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ECONOMIC TORTS AND ANTI-SECONDARY BOYCOTT LAWS IN AUSTRALIA A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy David John Goodwin LLB (Qld), Grad Dip Comm Law (Monash), M Bus (Logistics) (RMIT) Graduate School of Business and Law College of Business RMIT University September 2017 i CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. (Signed) …………………………………………………….. David John Goodwin 15 September 2017 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS i Acknowledgements ix ii Thesis Abstract 1 CHAPTER ONE – THE SUBJECT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE THESIS I INTRODUCTION 2 II THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 6 A The Contest of Rights 7 B Uncertainties under Australian Law 8 C Control Mechanisms for the Economic Torts 9 D Illegality and Unlawful Means 11 E Combination and Relative Power 12 F Limited Recourse to Justification Defences 13 G Private Law and Fundamental Rights 13 H The
    [Show full text]
  • Corrective Justice and the Unlawful Means Tort: Is There a Right to Trade?
    Vol. 28 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 167 CORRECTIVE JUSTICE AND THE UNLAWFUL MEANS TORT: IS THERE A RIGHT TO TRADE? Kerry Sun* ABSTRACT This paper investigates the extent to which the theory of corrective justice can account for the purpose, structure, and elements of the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations. It considers various proposed accounts of the tort, contending that the tort cannot be justified as an exception to the privity doctrine, a response to the defendant’s attempts to assert indirect control over the plaintiff, or a form of liability stretching. Extending a proposed account of the tort 2019 CanLIIDocs 2981 based on the theory of abuse of rights, this paper develops the idea of a “right to trade” that is founded on the conception of rights, remedies, and the systematicity of the legal order underlying corrective justice. The right to trade expresses each person’s equal opportunity to transact with others as abstract, self-determining beings in an omnilateral structure of relations—a juridical conception of the market. The paper argues that the unlawful means tort serves to protect this right, which is correlative to a duty on everyone not to interfere with the plaintiff’s equal status as a participant in the market. This conception of the tort provides a coherent account of its main features and situates it within the overall theory of corrective justice. Citation: (2019) 28 Dal J Leg Stud 167 * Kerry Sun received a J.D. with Distinction from the University of Toronto in 2018. He would like to thank Anthony Alexander, Brandon Kain, and Ron Podolny, in whose Economic Torts class this paper was initially conceived.
    [Show full text]
  • OBG Limited and Others (Appellants) V
    HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2006–07 [2007] UKHL 21 on appeal from:[2005] EWCA Civ 106 [2005] EWCA Civ 595, [2005] EWCA Civ 861 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE OBG Limited and others (Appellants) v. Allan and others (Respondents) Douglas and another and others (Appellants) v. Hello! Limited and others (Respondents) Mainstream Properties Limited (Appellants) v. Young and others and another (Respondents) Appellate Committee Lord Hoffmann Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Counsel Appellants: Respondents: OBG Ltd and others v. Allan and others OBG v. Allan John Randall QC Gregory Mitchell QC Alistair Wyvill Paul Greenwood Marc Brown (Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) (Instructed by Hammonds) Douglas and another and others v. Hello! Ltd Douglas and another and others v. Hello! Ltd James Price QC Richard Millett QC Giles Fernando Richard Slowe (Instructed by M Law) Paul Stanley Mainstream Properties Ltd v. Young and others and (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) another Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and Gordon Pollock QC another Barry Isaacs John Randall QC (Instructed by Leigh Davis) John de Waal (Instructed by The Smith Partnership) Hearing dates: 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28 November 2006 ON WEDNESDAY 2 MAY 2007 HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE OBG Limited and others (Appellants) v. Allan and others (Respondents) Douglas and another and others (Appellants) v. Hello! Limited and others (Respondents) Mainstream Properties Limited (Appellants) v.
    [Show full text]
  • Intentional Harm, Accessories and Conspiracies
    DRAFT ONLY – NOT FOR CITATION INTENTIONAL HARM, ACCESSORIES AND CONSPIRACIES Paul S. Davies* and Sir Philip Sales§ Clarity in relation to the tort of conspiracy has suffered from uncertainty in the analysis of other “economic torts” and the consequent uncertainty regarding the relationship between conspiracy and those torts. This has unsettled both sides of the relationship as the courts have struggled to explain how the law fits together in a coherent way. But reflection on the leading decisions of OBG Ltd. v Allan,1 Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network2 and Fish & Fish Ltd. v Sea Shepherd3 offers scope for movement to a clearer framework of legal principles. Although important uncertainties remain, we argue that two principles of liability can now be regarded as anchors to provide a vantage point from which critical engagement with the tort of conspiracy can be attempted: (i) primary liability in tort for intentional infliction of harm by unlawful means (the main subject of discussion in OBG: we will refer to this as “the unlawful means tort”) and (ii) accessory liability for involvement in a civil wrong committed by another (the subject of discussion in OBG and Fish & Fish). We conclude that acceptance of these two key principles leaves no need or justification for an independent tort of conspiracy. In OBG, the House of Lords unanimously adopted an explanation of the main (so- called) economic torts revolving around (i) and (ii) as two distinct principles of liability.4 In this, they followed the lead given by Lord Watson in Allen v Flood.5 The idea of a unified theory of the economic torts was rejected and it was held that liability for interfering with another’s contract (where that did not involve inducing a breach of contract) is to be assimilated with the unlawful means tort.6 The first section of this article will consider the nature and scope of the two key principles of intentional infliction of harm by unlawful means and accessory liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Li Siu Lun V Looi Kok Poh and Another
    Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh and another [2015] SGHC 149 Case Number : Suit No 245 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 390 of 2013 and Registrar's Appeal No 391 of 2013) Decision Date : 29 May 2015 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Belinda Ang Saw Ean J Counsel Name(s) : Roderick Edward Martin SC, Eugene Nai, Ooi Jian Yuan (Martin & Partners) instructed by Tan-Goh Song Gek Alice (A C Fergusson Law Corporation) for the plaintiff; Lek Siang Pheng, Audrey Chiang, June Hong (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) for the 2nd defendant. Parties : Li Siu Lun — Looi Kok Poh and another Damages – Aggravation Damages – Assessment Tort – Conspiracy 29 May 2015 Judgment reserved. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J: Introduction 1 The plaintiff, Mr Li Siu Lun (“Mr Li”), is a British citizen who resides in Hong Kong. He is self- employed and trades in property and stocks. The second defendant, Gleneagles Hospital (“Gleneagles”), is a well-known private hospital in Singapore and is owned by Parkway Hospitals Singapore Pte Ltd. 2 Sometime in April 2006, Mr Li consulted the first defendant, Dr Looi Kok Poh (“Dr Looi”), at his clinic in the Gleneagles Medical Centre in relation to stiffness in his right hand and wrist. Dr Looi performed surgery on Mr Li’s right hand and wrist on 26 April 2006. Unfortunately, the surgery was unsuccessful. Mr Li subsequently sued Dr Looi and Gleneagles for the botched surgery on 16 March 2009. 3 In the course of the proceedings, Dr Looi, on 21 June 2010, withdrew his Defence to Mr Li’s action in negligence and for trespass to person (ie, battery) in connection with a second procedure that was performed on Mr Li’s right hand and wrist without his prior consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Injury to Economic Interests : Some Facets of Legal Response
    TORT INJURY TO ECONOMIC INTERESTS : SOME FACETS OF LEGAL RESPONSE PETER BURNS* Vancouver During the past fifty years `a number of causes of action have emerged which have as their hallmark an intention to injure the economic interests of the plaintiff. This article will focus on the discrete causes of action known as inducing breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and intimidation. It will examine the evolution of these torts, paying particular attention to two nodal English decisions-Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v . Cousins' and Roôkes v . Barnard2 and the extent to which the expansive judicial pronouncements contained in them have been received by Canadian courts . As well; attention will be directed at attempts to formulate a principle of general liability- underlying the range of the nominate economic torts . I. Inducing Breach of Contract . The most well-defined economic tort arises in respect of an interference resulting in the breach of an existing contract. The origins of the tort stem from the action of enticing away the servant of another.a Concisely delimited-for the first time inLumley v. Gye,4 it was held in that case on demurrer that the action for enticement was not confined to contracts between master and servant in the strict sense, but applied as well to any instance where professional services were rendered . As Lumley v. Gyes has ostensibly formed the basis for most subsequent examinations of the tort of inducement, it is important to understand the principles that it outlines . In essence the following were regarded as the requisites of the cause of action: (1) that the defendant's actions be unlawful ; (2) that the person induced be under contract; (3) that harm results from the defendant's conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • For the Truth Can Hurt: Defamatory but True Statements in the Tort of Simple Conspiracy
    NEVER SAY ‘NEVER’ FOR THE TRUTH CAN HURT: DEFAMATORY BUT TRUE STATEMENTS IN THE TORT OF SIMPLE CONSPIRACY GARY CHAN KOK YEW∗ [This article examines the remedies arising from the publication of defamatory but true statements under the tort of simple conspiracy. The English Court of Appeal in Lonrho plc v Fayed [No 5] held that, in such a case, loss of reputation is not recoverable in the tort of simple conspiracy, but only in a defamation action. However, pecuniary losses may be recovered if proved. This raises questions as to the determination of the proper limits for the losses recoverable from the publication of defama- tory but true statements in the tort of conspiracy. It is argued that the categorical denial of recovery for loss of reputation in Lonrho should be re-examined. It should be possible to allow recovery, albeit in restricted circumstances, for loss of reputation in simple conspiracy.] CONTENTS I Introduction............................................................................................................. 321 II Loss of Reputation Denied: Lonrho........................................................................ 322 III The Truth Can Hurt................................................................................................. 325 A The Meaning of Truth and Reputation....................................................... 325 B Injunction Granted in Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v Page........................ 326 C The Case of Breach of Confidence/Privacy..............................................
    [Show full text]