Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd [1982] AC 173
Tort – Cause of action – Foreseeable loss – Unlawful act – Whether arising from breach of statutory prohibition
Facts:
Shell operated an oil refinery in Southern Rhodesia (SR). Lonrho constructed a pipeline from a port in Mozambique where oil would be shipped to, as per the agreement between Lonrho and Shell. Shell was the principal participating company. The SR government declared independence, causing the UK to pass legislation criminalising the supply of oil to SR. The pipeline became disused and Lonrho suffered a consequential loss of revenue. Before the legislation, the participating companies had assured SR they would continue to supply oil, which had influenced the inception of independence and prolonged the disuse of the pipeline. Lonrho sought damages.
Issues:
Whether the foreseeable loss of Lonrho’s revenue caused by Shell and other participating companies could be seen as a loss by an unlawful act, or as a joint tort of conspiring to do an unlawful act which entitled Lonrho to damages.
Held:
The appeal was dismissed. The allegations that the participating companies had guaranteed the supply of oil to the government did not give Lonrho a cause of action in tort, as any breach of the prohibition of the supply was not enough to found such right. The conspiracy was held not to assume there was an intention to injure, there was only alleged actual knowledge that damage would be suffered. Where an agreement was made to protect the self-interests of the participating companies, and not for the purpose of injuring the appellants, even when the actions of the agreement to supply oil could be criminalised by legislation, there was no such right based on the tort of conspiracy. Therefore, Lonrho had no cause in action and no right to damages.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd [1982] AC 173. The legal principles discussed — particularly regarding the two limbs of the tort of conspiracy (unlawful means conspiracy and conspiracy to injure) and the requirement of an intention to injure the claimant for the latter — remain good law. The House of Lords’ analysis in this case continues to be cited in subsequent decisions on economic torts. Notably, the law on unlawful means conspiracy was further clarified by the House of Lords in Total Network SL v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] UKHL 19, which confirmed that unlawful means for the purposes of conspiracy need not be independently actionable in civil law, a development not addressed in this summary but relevant to a fuller understanding of the surrounding area of law. The summary remains broadly accurate as a statement of the ratio of the Lonrho v Shell decision itself.
