## Facts

- D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd. published newspapers and periodicals and maintained a long-standing policy of not employing trade union members.
- A dispute followed Thomson’s dismissal of an employee who was a member of NATSOPA.
- Several unions, through officials including Arthur Deakin and others, supported industrial action and picketing and sought to disrupt deliveries to Thomson, especially paper and ink.
- Union officials communicated with employees of Thomson’s suppliers (including a paper supplier group) and encouraged refusal to load or transport paper destined for Thomson.
- The supplier informed Thomson it could no longer supply paper, exposing the supplier to breach of its supply contract with Thomson.
- Thomson sought interlocutory injunctions and damages, alleging conspiracy and tortious interference by inducing employees of the supplier to break their employment contracts so as to cause the supplier to breach its contract with Thomson.

## Issues

1. Whether the tort of procuring/inducing breach of contract can apply where a defendant acts indirectly by influencing employees of a contracting party rather than the contracting party itself.
2. What elements must be shown (at least prima facie for interim relief) to establish liability for procuring breach of contract in an “employees-as-intermediaries” scenario.
3. Whether otherwise lawful conduct becomes actionable interference merely because it is intended to, and does, cause a contractual breach.
4. Whether, on the record for an interlocutory motion, Thomson showed a sufficient prima facie case to justify interim injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Thomson’s appeal and affirmed the refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
- The court accepted that interference with contractual performance is not limited to direct persuasion of a contracting party; indirect interference may be actionable where wrongful means are used.
- The court held Thomson had not shown a sufficiently clear prima facie case of actionable procurement/inducement on the evidence available at the interim stage.
- In particular, the record did not clearly establish definite and unequivocal procurement of employees’ breaches or that the employees in fact breached their employment contracts.

## Legal Principles

- Procuring/inducing breach of contract requires proof (commonly stated in four elements): (1) knowledge of the contract and intent to procure its breach; (2) definite and unequivocal persuasion/inducement/procurement of the relevant employees to breach their employment contracts; (3) an actual breach by those employees; and (4) a breach of the claimant’s contract ensuing as a necessary consequence of the employees’ breaches.
- The tort is not confined to direct persuasion of a contracting party; indirect interference can be actionable where the defendant, by independently wrongful conduct, prevents performance.
- Acts that are lawful in themselves do not become actionable interference with contractual rights merely because they intentionally bring about a breach; intention and causation alone are insufficient (absent a separate wrong such as conspiracy to injure).

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal declined interim relief because the claimant did not show a clear prima facie case that union officials had definitely procured actual breaches of employees’ contracts leading necessarily to breach of the supply contract; the decision is chiefly cited for its elements of inducing breach and its limit that lawful pressure, without independent wrongdoing, is not actionable solely because it causes contractual nonperformance.


D.C. Thomson & Co. v. Deakin, [1952] Ch. 646 (Ct. App. 1952)