Jak Trude v Christopher Rajendran Hyman & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1703 (Ch)
IMG Data Limited v Perform Content Services Limited
19 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3244 (Ch)
High Court
A company (Claimant) sued another (Defendant) for stealing its exclusive data from football matches. The Defendant argued the Claimant couldn't sue because they didn't have a direct contract with the data thieves. The judge said the Claimant *might* be able to sue under other countries' laws and let the case proceed to trial to find out the facts.
Key Facts
- •IMG Data Limited (Claimant) alleges Perform Content Services Limited (Defendant) operates an unauthorized data collection network at stadium events, breaching Claimant's exclusive data collection rights.
- •Claimant's claim is based on the tort of inducing breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy.
- •Defendant applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgment.
- •The alleged breaches of contract occurred under various foreign laws, making foreign law and its effect a key element.
- •Claimant claims to be a third-party beneficiary under the relevant foreign laws, entitled to sue the Defendant in England and Wales.
- •The Defendant argues that the Claimant, not being a party to the breached contracts, cannot sue for inducing breach of contract.
Legal Principles
Liability for inducing breach of contract is accessory to the primary liability for breach of contract; the claimant must have an actionable claim against the contract-breaker.
OBG v Allan [2008] AC 1
A claimant need not be a party to the contract to sue for inducing breach of contract if they have a right to sue under the relevant foreign law (this issue is open for argument).
Various cases discussed in the judgment, including OBG v Allan, Birss J in 77m Ltd v Ordnance Survey, Moore-Bick J in Protea Leasing, Popplewell LJ in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, and others.
In unlawful means conspiracy, the unlawful means must be the 'instrumentality' by which the loss was caused; there is a debate regarding whether this means 'intentionally directed at' the claimant or simply a matter of causation.
Racing Partnership Ltd v Sports Information Services Ltd [2020] Ch 289 and [2021] EWCA Civ 1300; OBG v Allan [2008] AC 1
The 'dealing requirement' (interference with a third party's freedom to deal with the claimant) is essential in causing loss by unlawful means, but it's debated whether it's necessary in unlawful means conspiracy.
Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories [2021] UKSC 24; various cases discussed in the judgment.
Outcomes
Defendant's application to strike out or for summary judgment was dismissed.
The court found the Claimant's claims for inducing breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy to be arguable and that there was a real prospect of success. The court determined the legal questions raised are best determined on a full factual record after a trial.
Similar Cases
Entertainment Aps Limited v Yash Patel & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2498 (TCC)
West 28th Street Limited & Anor v Halstead Associates Limited (trading as Halstead Associates)
[2024] EWHC 1698 (TCC)
Iryna Gordiy v Jekaterina Dorofejeva & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3036 (Comm)
Tariq Hamoodi v Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd
[2024] EWHC 1314 (Comm)