High Court Rules in Favor of Claimant in Conspiracy and Breach of Contract Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 525 (Comm)
Judgment on


The case of Christopher Gary Hoole v Meredith Charles Limited & Ors ([2024] EWHC 525 (Comm)) concerns allegations of conspiracy, procurement of breach of contract, and unlawful interference with contractual relations. The judgment, delivered by Simon Tinkler sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, provides a detailed dissection of the tortious liabilities arising from concerted actions aimed at inducing contract breaches. This analysis highlights the critical aspects of the case and the legal principles applied by the judge, directly linking them with the provided case summary.

Key Facts

Christopher Gary Hoole, the claimant, is a financial intermediary who entered into a contract with Meredith Charles Limited (MCL), the first defendant, to find investors for Pardus Capital’s bond issue, with an agreed commission structure. Hoole alleges that MCL, along with other defendants, including the second to seventh defendants associated with Pardus (Pardus Property, Pardus Capital, Pardus Wealth), and individual defendants, Mr. Bold and Mr. Bryce, conspired to avoid paying him the commission due and breached their contractual obligations.

The defendants argued that the Pardus/MCL Contract was lawfully terminated due to a repudiatory breach by MCL, hence negating liability towards Hoole. Additionally, they introduced alternative defenses, including a purported settlement agreement and later claimed the involvement of a third party, Mr. Myers, suppressed information leading to the contract’s termination.

Several fundamental legal principles were expertly navigated throughout the judgment:

  1. Conspiracy to Cause Loss by Unlawful Means: The court examined the elements of this tort, including the combination of parties, concerted unlawful action, intention to injure, and consequential damage. The judge referenced Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v Al Bader and The Racing Partnership v Sports Information Services Limited, highlighting that bad faith actions by directors causing a company to breach a contract and knowing the impact thereby can be subject to conspiracy to injure liability.

  2. Procurement of Breach of Contract: The court elucidated the essentials of this tort, including knowledge of the contract term breached and intention. Notably, the judgment cited British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori and Emerald Construction Co. Ltd v Lowthian, emphasizing that actively facilitating a contract breach knowingly or recklessly, regardless of direct involvement, incurs liability.

  3. Unlawful Interference with Contractual Relations: While this tort was not emphasized due to the establishment of procurement and conspiracy torts, it underscores the illegality of actions disrupting contractual rights, causing damage.

  4. Director’s Personal Liability (Said v Butt Principle): The case touched on the nuanced issue of a director’s liability for a company’s breach of contract. It distinguished between actions in good faith within a director’s authority, which would not incur personal liability, and actions like conspiracy or dishonesty, which would step out of that scope. The principle in Said v Butt and its interpretation in subsequent cases like Antuzis v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd and IBM United Kingdom limited v LZLABS GmbH were instrumental in the analysis.

  5. The Duplicitous Creation of Documents: The deliberate fabrication of evidence and false representations were treated as grave offenses against the judicial system, influencing the ruling by evidencing bad faith.


The court found that MCL breached its contract with Hoole by not paying the agreed commission. Mr. Bold, Mr. Bryce, and the Pardus Companies were held jointly and severally liable for conspiring to cause loss by unlawful means, as well as procuring the breach of contract with Hoole. The judge rejected the defenses raised by defendants, including the asserted settlement agreement and the ‘Myers defense,’ finding them to be unsubstantiated and insufficient to negate liability.


The judgment of Christopher Gary Hoole v Meredith Charles Limited & Ors serves as a comprehensive guide through the landscape of tortious interference with contractual relations and the intricate liability tests directors face when acting in breach of their duties. It illuminates the repercussions for individuals and entities that deliberately conspire to evade contractual obligations and interfere unlawfully with business relations. The court’s meticulous application of legal principles to the facts at hand demonstrates a commitment to upholding contractual integrity and penalizing deceitful conduct within the commercial sphere.

Related Summaries