Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v Page and others [1987] Ch 327
Injunction; conspiracy; breach of contract; accuracy of statement
(285 words)
Facts
The claimant was in an exclusive supply agreement with the defendants, the owners of petrol filling stations. Following a debt dispute, the claimant stopped deliveries to the defendants except on COD direct debit terms. The defendants then contracted with another supplier and failed to make the payments still owed to the claimant. As a result, the claimant terminated their contract. Consequently, the defendants sued the claimant for breach of contract. The trial judge found that the claimant has indeed been in breach before it terminated the agreement and awarded damages to the defendants for the failed deliveries. Both sides appealed. Before the appeal was heard, the defendants engaged in different activities exposing the details of the judgment against the claimant to the claimant’s customers. The claimant sought an injunction and damages for conspiracy to injure. The claimant’s request was refused – it appealed.
Issues
The claimant disagreed with the refusal to grant an injunction and the finding that there was no conspiracy to injure due to the truth of the words as exposed by the defendants.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal agreed with the claimant. While defamation principles did in fact hold that no wrong would be committed if the words published were true, these principles did not apply here. As the statement made by the defendants were published following a combination between them, with the sole purpose to injuring the claimant’s interests, a conspiracy to injure was established. As the claimant did not base its action on libel, but a conspiracy to injure, in order to grant an injunction, the court merely had to be satisfied that there was a serious question of conspiracy to injure to be tried with sufficient prima facie evidence.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v Page [1987] Ch 327 is a Court of Appeal decision and has not been overruled. The core legal principles it establishes — that an injunction may be granted in a conspiracy to injure claim even where the published statement is true, and that the truth of a statement is not a defence to conspiracy — continue to be recognised in English law. The distinction between defamation (where truth is a complete defence) and the tort of conspiracy to injure remains good law. Subsequent cases and commentary have not disturbed this position. Readers should note that the broader law of conspiracy to injure has been developed in later cases, and the principles governing interlocutory injunctions generally are now understood in light of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, which the Court of Appeal applied in substance in reaching its decision here. The article is suitable for general study purposes.
