Tarleton v McGawley [1793] 170 ER 153
Tort – Interference – Unlawful interference – Intention to cause injury
Facts:
Tarleton was a ship trading off the coast of West Africa with Cameroon locals. The Bannister ship, directed by M’Gawley, shot a cannon from the water and hit a Cameroon ship, killing a local onboard. The cannon was shot in the effort to scare the Cameroon people away and interrupt the trade that was occurring between Tarleton ship and the locals, as M’Gawley was owed money by the locals. Tarleton brought action for interference.
Issues:
Whether unlawful interference occurred in circumstances where M’Gawley was owed money, and would otherwise be entitled to recover it.
Held:
Tarleton’s loss was occasioned by a fear arising from the danger of life itself. The locals had become too scared to trade goods with Tarleton because of the cannon and the fear of death or injury. The court noted that if there was any Court in that country to which he could have applied for justice to recover his losses, he might have done so, but he had no right to take the law into his own hands. Further, if the shooting had been an accidental act, no action could have been maintained. However, it is proved that the M’Gawley had expressed an intention not to permit any to trade, until a debt due from the locals to himself was satisfied. He had contrived law and maliciously intended to hinder and deter the natives from trading with Tarleton. This had caused physical and unlawful injury to the locals and injury to the profits of the Tarleton. The action was allowed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the historical case of Tarleton v McGawley (1793) 170 ER 153, a foundational authority in the tort of unlawful interference with trade (sometimes referred to within the broader economic torts). The case remains good law as a historical precedent illustrating the principle that intentional, unlawful acts designed to interfere with another’s trade can give rise to tortious liability.
Readers should note that the economic torts, including unlawful interference with trade, have been significantly developed and clarified by subsequent case law. In particular, the House of Lords in OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 undertook a comprehensive rationalisation of the economic torts. The Supreme Court further considered these principles in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 14) [2018] UKSC 19. Tarleton v McGawley is frequently cited in academic discussion of these torts but should be understood in the context of this later, more developed body of law. The article’s summary of the facts and the court’s reasoning is accurate as a case note.
