Palmer Birch (A Partnership) v Lloyd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2316 (TCC) (24 September 2018)

Palmer Birch (A Partnership) v Lloyd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2316 (TCC) (24 September 2018)

The court held that the defendants were not liable in tort for inducing breach of contract, unlawful interference, or unlawful means conspiracy because their actions were taken in their capacities as director and funder of HHL, and there was no evidence of them acting outside the scope of their bona fide duties or using unlawful means. The claims were found to be an impermissible attempt to pierce the corporate veil. The claim in conversion failed as the evidence did not establish wrongful interference by the defendants personally with the claimant's goods.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2316 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Palmer Birch (a partnership); Defendant: Michael Lloyd; Defendant: Christopher Lloyd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort Economic Torts and Conversion) / Judgment After Preliminary Trial of Liability Issues
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Inducing Breach of Contract, Unlawful Interference, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Conversion, Corporate Veil, Director Liability, Insolvency, Construction Contracts
Tort Law Contract Law Construction Law Company Law Inducing Breach of Contract Unlawful Interference Unlawful Means Conspiracy Conversion +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palmer Birch (a partnership)

Claimant

Michael Lloyd

Defendant

Christopher Lloyd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort Economic Torts and Conversion) / Judgment After Preliminary Trial of Liability Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable in tort for inducing breach of contract, unlawful interference, and unlawful means conspiracy in relation to the non-payment and termination of a construction contract by a company they controlled or funded;
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are liable in conversion for the alleged wrongful removal of tools and materials;
  3. 3 Whether the claims amount to an impermissible attempt to pierce the corporate veil;

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants were not liable in tort for inducing breach of contract, unlawful interference, or unlawful means conspiracy because their actions were taken in their capacities as director and funder of HHL, and there was no evidence of them acting outside the scope of their bona fide duties or using unlawful means. The claims were found to be an impermissible attempt to pierce the corporate veil. The claim in conversion failed as the evidence did not establish wrongful interference by the defendants personally with the claimant's goods.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims against the defendants are dismissed.
  • No order for damages or further relief.