Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1
Court: House of Lords | Judgment: 14 December 1897
Deliberately causing another person economic loss did not, on these facts, create liability merely because the defendant acted maliciously. The House of Lords allowed Allen’s appeal by six to three. He had neither procured a breach of contract nor used unlawful means to bring about the claimants’ loss of employment.
The employment dispute
Flood and Taylor were woodworkers employed by the day at a shipyard in Millwall. Ironworkers objected to their presence because they were known to have performed ironwork at another yard. The dispute concerned the division of work between the trades, rather than simply their having worked for a rival employer.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Allen, a representative of the Boilermakers’ Society, was called to the yard. He told management what would happen if Flood and Taylor continued to be employed. The employers discharged them. Because they were employed by the day, ending their employment did not involve breaking a contract.
The claimants alleged that Allen had maliciously brought about their loss. At trial, the judge ruled that there was no evidence of conspiracy, intimidation, coercion or breach of contract. The jury nevertheless found that Allen had acted maliciously, and the claimants succeeded before the case reached the House of Lords.
Why malice was insufficient
The majority distinguished causing a loss from infringing a legal right. The employer’s decision not to continue employing the claimants was lawful. Allen’s bad motive could not, by itself, make him liable for procuring that decision.
The claimants could not bring the case within the principle associated with Lumley v Gye, concerning the procurement of a breach of contract. The necessary breach was absent. Nor had Allen used independently unlawful means to cause the loss. The majority rejected the proposition that malicious interference alone supplied a separate basis for recovery.
This did not mean that economic loss caused through another person’s actions could never be actionable. The reasoning distinguished procurement of an actionable wrong from procurement of a lawful act through unlawful means. Neither basis was established here.
Outcome and scope
Allen’s appeal succeeded and the claimants could not recover damages from him on the basis advanced. The decision was a majority ruling, not a unanimous one.
The absence of conspiracy was also material. Lord Macnaghten expressly distinguished cases involving an oppressive combination. The decision should therefore not be read as resolving the liability of people acting together in a conspiracy, or as holding that motive can never matter anywhere in tort law.
Sources: Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1; OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, discussion of Allen v Flood; Total Network SL v HMRC [2008] UKHL 19, paragraph 71.
