Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:28:05.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEFINING THE COMPETITION TORTS AS INTENTIONAL WRONGS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Cristián A. Banfi
Cristián A. Banfi
Affiliation:
Lecturer of Private Law, University of Chile. Ph.D., Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 83 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 These agreements are in principle forbidden and declared void if they affect trade and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the EU/UK market: article 101 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), formerly article 81 of the EC Treaty, and Chapter I/Prohibition of the Competition Act 1998.

2 The abuse of dominance by one or more undertakings within the EC/UK market is prohibited under article 102 TFEU (ex article 82 EC) and Chapter II/Prohibition of the Competition Act 1998. In this paper references are made to articles 81 and 82 EC as this is still the conventional numbering.

3 I.e., the EC Commission (Competition Directorate). In the UK, the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) or, in the last instance, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”).

4 Lumley v. Gye (1853) 118 E.R. 749 (hereinafter, “Lumley-tort”).

5 Alternatively called “causing economic loss by using unlawful means” (OBG v. Allan, Douglas v. Hello! & Mainstream v. Young [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [6], Lord Hoffmann), “three party unlawful interference with another's business or trade” (ibid, at [141], Lord Nicholls), “intentional-harm tort” (Sales, P. and Stilitz, D., “Intentional Infliction of Harm by Unlawful Means” (1999) 115 L.Q.R. 411Google Scholar) or, more concisely here, “unlawful-interference tort”.

6 Van Gend en Loos v. Neder-Landse Tariefcommissie case 26/62 [1963] E.C.R. 1.

7 BRT v. SABAM case 127/73 [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 238.

8 Valor International Ltd. v. Application des Gaz S.A. [1978] 3 C.M.L.R. 87, 100, Roskill L.J.

9 Application des Gaz S.A. v. Falks Veritas Ltd. [1974] Ch. 381, 396, Lord Denning M.R.

10 Barretts & Baird v. Institution of Professional Civil Servants [1987] I.R.L.R. 3, 5, Henry J.

11 [1984] 1 A.C. 130.

12 Ibid, 141.

13 E.g., Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture [1986] 1 Q.B. 716, 787, Parker L.J. It is noteworthy that the first instance decision in Garden Cottage Foods, restored by the House of Lords, had been the work of the then Parker J.

14 X v. Bedforshire CC [1995] 2 A.C. 633, 731, Lord Browne-Wilkinson.

15 Buckley, R., “Liability in Tort for Breach of Statutory Duty” (1984) 100 L.Q.R. 204Google Scholar.

16 Ex p. Island Records [1978] Ch. 122, 135, 137.

17 Lonrho Ltd v. Shell Petroleum Co (No. 2) [1982] A.C. 173, 183, 187.

18 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [57], Lord Hoffmann.

19 E.g., Cutler v. Wandsworth Stadium Ld. [1949] A.C. 398, 407, Lord Simonds; South Australia Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Ltd [1997] A.C. 191, 211, Lord Hoffmann.

20 Competition Act 1998, as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002, s. 47A.

21 Crehan v. Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) [2004] E.W.C.A. Civ. 637, at [156], [167], Gibson L.J.

22 HJ Banks & Co v. British Coal Corp. case C-128/92 [1994] 5 C.M.L.R. 30, at [26], [45], [53], Van Gerven (Advocate-General).

23 Case c-453/99 [2002] Q.B. 507.

24 [2002] Q.B. 507, at [32]–[36].

25 Smith v. Cammell [1940] A.C. 242, 258, Lord Atkin.

26 See note 15 above; R. Buckley, The Law of Negligence, 4th ed (London 2005), p. 351.

27 Stanton, K., “New Forms of the Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty” (2004) 120 L.Q.R. 324Google Scholar.

28 See note 12 above; R. v. Secretary of State for Transport ex. p. Factortame Ltd (No. 6) [2001] 1 W.L.R. 942.

29 K. Stanton, P. Skidmore, M. Harris and J. Wright, Statutory Torts (London 2003), pp. 269–270, 411 ff.

30 Manfredi v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA Joined Cases C-295/04 through C-298/04 [2006] E.C.R. I-6619.

31 Hoskins, M., “Garden Cottage Revisited: The Availability of Damages in the National Courts for Breaches of the EEC Competition Rules” (1992) 13 E.C.L.R. 257Google Scholar.

32 P. Cane, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 7th ed (Cambridge 2006), p. 93.

33 Whish, R., “The Enforcement of EC Competition Law in the Domestic Courts of Member States” (1994) 15 E.C.L.R. 60Google Scholar, p. 65.

34 R. Thompson and J. O'Flaherty, “Article 82” in P. Roth and V. Rose (eds.), Bellamy & Child European Community Law of Competition, 6th ed (Oxford 2008), ch. 10, p. 1447.

35 U.S. v. Carroll Towing 159 F.2d 169, 173, 2d.Cir (1947) Hand J.

36 E.g., Wagon Mound (No.2) [1967] 1 A.C. 617.

37 S. Shavell, Economic Analysis of Accident Law (Cambridge Mass. 1987), pp. 9 ff, 31–32.

38 E. Weinrib, Idea of Private Law (Cambridge Mass. 1995), p. 189.

39 Fletcher, G., “Fairness and Utility in Tort Theory” (1972) 85 H.L.R. 537CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 542, 550.

40 R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 6th ed (New York 2003), pp. 178–179.

41 D. Owen, “The Fault Pit” (1992) Ga.L.Rev. 703, pp. 719 ff.

42 R. Epstein, “A Theory of Strict Liability” (1973) 2 J. L.S. 151.

43 S. Perry, “The Impossibility of General Strict Liability” in J. Feinberg and J. Coleman (eds.), Philosophy of Law. Part III (Belmont Calif. 2004), 612–630.

44 J. Fleming, The Law of Torts 9th ed. (Sidney 1998), p. 193.

45 Seavey, W., “Principles of Torts” (1942) 56 H.L.R. 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 84.

46 Cane, P., “Justice and Justifications for Tort Liability” (1982) 2 O.J.L.S. 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 C. Jones, Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the EU, UK and USA (Oxford 1999), p. 118.

48 Landes, W. and Posner, R., “An Economic Analysis of Intentional Torts” (1981) 1 Int'l Rev.L.&Econ. 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Epstein, R., “A Common Law for Labour Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation” (1983) 92 Y.L.J. 1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 1368 ff; Ellis, D., “An Economic Theory of Intentional Torts: A Comment” (1983) 3 Int'l Rev.L.&Econ. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [62], Lord Hoffmann.

51 See notes 189 ff and accompanying text.

52 R. Whish, Competition Law, 6th ed (Oxford 2008), pp. 189, 731.

53 Claymore Dairies Ltd v. OFT [2005] CAT 30, at [270].

54 Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA v. Commission Cases C-395/95 & C-396/95 [2004] C.M.L.R. 1076 ECJ, at [117], [132] (Advocate General Fennelly).

55 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation 475 U.S. 574 (1986), 594, Powell J.

56 (1889) L.R. 23 Q.B.D. 598, [1892] A.C. 25.

57 McGee, J., “Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case” (1958) 1 J.L.E. 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 107 Minn. 145 (1909).

59 Epstein, R., “Intentional Harms” (1975) 4 J.L.S. 391CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Shapiro, G., “The Prima Facie Tort Doctrine: Acknowledging the Need for Judicial Scrutiny of Malice” (1983) 63 B.U.L.Rev. 1101Google Scholar.

61 Perlman, H., “Interference with Contract and other Economic Expectancies: A Clash of Tort and Contract Doctrine” (1982) 49 U.Chi.L.Rev. 61, pp. 95CrossRefGoogle Scholarff.

62 AKZO v. Commission Case C-62/86 [1993] 5 C.M.L.R. 215, at [72].

63 E.g., Aberdeen Journals v. OFT [2003] CAT 11, at [356].

64 Areeda, P. and Turner, D., “Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act” (1975) 88 H.L.R. 697CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf: Easterbrook, F., “Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies” (1981) 48 U.Chi.L.Rev. 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission Case C-333/94P [1997] 4 C.M.L.R. 662, at [44]. Cf: Carter Holt Harvey Building Products Group Ltd v. The Commerce Commission [2004] U.K.P.C. 37, at [67], Lord Hope (demanding proof that the defendant exercised its market power in the long term); Whish, note 52 above, p. 736.

66 Steiner, J., “How to Make the Action Suit the Case: Domestic Remedies for Breach of EEC Law” (1987) 12 E.L.Rev. 102Google Scholar.

67 T. Weir, A Casebook on Tort Law, 10th ed (London 2004), p. 598.

68 M. Brealey and M. Hoskins, Remedies in EC law: Law and Practice in the English and EC Courts, 2nd ed (London 1998), pp. 126–127.

69 Jones, note 47 above, p. 121.

70 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [45] ff, Lord Hoffmann.

71 Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Total Network SL [2008] 1 A.C. 1174.

72 Associated British Ports v. Transport and General Workers' Union [1989] 3 All E.R. 796 (overruled by the HL on different reasons: [1989] 1 W.L.R. 939); Sales, P., “The Tort of Conspiracy and Civil Secondary Liability” (1990) 49 C.L.J. 491, pp. 504–505Google Scholar.

73 Holleran v. Daniel Thwaites Plc [1989] 2 C.M.L.R. 917, at [51]–[52].

74 Carty, H., “Joint Tortfeasance and Assistance Liability” (1999) 19 L.S. 489, pp. 494–495Google Scholar, 506.

75 Montgomery v. Thompson [1891] A.C. 217, 220, Lord Herschell; AG Spalding & Bros v. AW Gamage Ltd [1914–15] All E.R. Rep.147, 149, Lord Parker; Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd. v. Pub Squash Co. Pty Ltd [1981] 1 W.L.R. 193, 205, Lord Scarman.

76 Reddaway v. Banham [1896] A.C. 199.

77 P. Cane, The Anatomy of Tort Law (Oxford 1997), pp. 45 ff, 146.

78 J Bollinger SA v. Costa Brava Wine Co. Ltd. [1960] Ch. 262, 274, Danckwerts J.

79 Waller, S., “The Incoherence of Punishment in Antitrust” (2003) 78 Chicago-Kent Law Review 207Google Scholar.

80 H. Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts (Oxford 2001), pp. 39 ff; S. Deakin, A. Johnston and B. Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law, 6th ed (Oxford 2007), p. 603.

81 P. Cane, Tort Law and Economic Interests, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1996).

82 Sir F. Pollock, The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the Principles of Obligations Arising from Civil Wrongs in the Common Law (London 1887), pp. 129–130; P. Birks, “The Concept of a Civil Wrong”, in D. Owen (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (Oxford 1995), ch. 1, p. 38.

83 Conversely, the tort of breach of statutory duty (from which the competition torts stemmed) triggers liability for pure economic loss: London Passenger Transport Board v. Upson [1949] A.C. 155, 168–169, Lord Wright.

84 Perry, S., “Protected Interests and Undertakings in the Law of Negligence” (1992) 42 U.T.L.J. 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 263ff; Abraham, K., “The Trouble with Negligence” (2001) 54 Vand.L.Rev. 1187Google Scholar; Benson, P., “The Problem with Pure Economic Loss” (2009) 60 S.C.L.Rev. 823, pp. 867Google Scholar ff.

85 Stapleton, J., “Comparative Economic Loss: Lesson from Case-Law-Focused ‘Middle Theory’” (2002) 50 UCLA L.Rev. 531Google Scholar.

86 Third parties owe no duty not to interfere with that freedom: Hohfeld, W., “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning” (1913) 23 Y.L.J. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 H.L.A. Hart, “Bentham on Legal Rights” in A.W.B. Simpson (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Second Series (Oxford 1973), ch. 7, pp. 180–181.

88 See note 60 above and accompanying text.

89 Cane, note 77 above, pp. 57–58, 152.

90 [1898] A.C. 1.

91 Pollock, note 82 above, p. 129; Holmes, O.W., “Privilege, Malice, and Intent” (1894) 8 H.L.R. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Sir Pollock, F., “Allen v Flood” (1898) 14 L.Q.R. 129Google Scholar.

93 Vegelahn v. Guntner 44 N.E. 1077 (1896), 1080–81, Holmes J.

94 Aikens v. Wisconsin 195 U.S. 194 (1904), 204, Holmes J.; W. Landes and R. Posner, The Economic Structure of Tort Law (Cambridge Mass. 1987), pp. 111–112.

95 U.S. v. Aluminium Co. of America 148 F.2d 416 (1945), 430, Hand J.

96 Leigh and Sillivan Ltd. v. Aliakmon Shipping Co. Ltd. [1985] Q.B. 350, 393, Goff L.J. Similarly: Home Office v. Dorset Yatch Co. Ltd. [1970] A.C. 1004, 1027, Lord Reid.

97 Brown Shoe Co. v. U.S. 370 U.S. 294 (1962), 320, Warren C.J.

98 Wood, D., “Unfair Trade Injury: A Competition-based Approach” (1989) 41 Stan.L.Rev. 1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox. A Policy at War with Itself, 2nd ed (New York 1993), pp. 7 ff.

100 Hoffmann La Roche v. Commission Case 85/76 [1979] 3 C.M.L.R. 211; Albion Water v. DG Water Services [2005] CAT 40, at [262].

101 See note 90 above.

102 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II–II, qu. 64, art. 7.

103 J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781), edited by J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart (New York 1996), ch. 8, §6, p. 86, ch. 9, §17, p. 94; Boyle, J.M., “Toward Understanding the Principle of Double Effect” (1980) 90 Ethics 527CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law 2nd ed (New York 2008), p. 120; Quinn, W., “Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Double Effect” (1989) 18 Phil.& Pub.Aff. 334Google ScholarPubMed.

105 K. Gibson, Ethics and Business. An Introduction (Cambridge 2007).

106 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [62]–[63], Lord Hoffmann; at [164]–[165], Lord Nicholls.

107 Ibid, at [134], Lord Hoffmann.

108 Ibid, at [166]–[167], Lord Nicholls.

109 Three Rivers DC v. Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 A.C. 1, 192, Lord Steyn; 235, Lord Millett.

110 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [191], Lord Nicholls.

111 Ibid, at [43], Lord Hoffmann (overruling Millar v. Bassey [1994] E.M.L.R. 44).

112 Ibid, at [59]–[60], [134]–[135].

113 Carty, H., “The Economic Torts in the 21st Century” (2008) 124 L.Q.R. 641Google Scholar, pp. 653ff.

114 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 211.

115 Dworkin, G. and Harari, A., “The Beaudesert Decision – Raising the Ghost of the Action upon the Case” (1967) 40 ALJ 296Google Scholar, p. 347.

116 Northern Territory of Australia v. Mengel (1995) 69 A.L.J.R. 527.

117 See note 17 above, at 188, Lord Diplock.

118 Deakin, S. and Randall, J., “Rethinking the Economic Torts” (2009) 72 M.L.R. 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [59]–[60], [134]–[135].

120 Ibid, at [43].

121 See notes 118–119 above.

122 J. Salmond, Jurisprudence, 9th ed. by James Parker (London 1937), pp. 518 ff; J. Finnis: “Intention and Side-effects', in R.G. Frey and C. Morris (eds.), Liability and Responsibility. Essays in Law and Morals (Cambridge 1991), ch. 2; “Intention in Tort Law”, in Owen, note 82 above, ch. 10.

123 Sorrell v. Smith [1925] A.C. 700, 742, Lord Sumner.

124 Douglas v. Hello! [2006] Q.B. 125, at [159], [166], [213]–[214], [223]–[225], [236], Lord Phillips M.R.

125 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [130]–[136].

126 See note 113 above.

127 See note 118 above.

128 G.E. Anscombe, Intention 2nd ed (Oxford 1963), pp. 44–45.

129 Brian C.J., Y.B.17 Edw.IV, 1.

130 Lord Halsbury L.C., South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Company Ltd. [1905] A.C. 239, 244.

131 See note 118 above, pp. 539–540.

132 Bayley J., R v. Harvey (1823) 107 E.R. 379 (1823).

133 G. Williams, “Oblique Intention” [1987] C.L.J. 417.

134 D. Howarth, “Is There a Future for the Intentional Torts?” in P. Birks (ed.), The Classification of Obligations (Oxford 1997), ch. 9.

135 Howarth, D., “Against Lumley v. Gye” (2005) 68 M.L.R. 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

136 T. Weir, “The Staggering March of Negligence” in P. Cane and J. Stapleton (eds.), The Law of Obligations. Essays in Celebration of John Fleming (Oxford 1998), ch. 5, p. 117.

137 Neyers, J., “Rights-based Justifications for the Tort of Unlawful Interference with Economic Relations” (2008) 28 L.S. 215, pp. 224–225Google Scholar.

138 R. Whish, “Control of Cartels and other Anti-competitive Agreements” in V. Dhall (ed.), Competition Law Today: Concepts, Issues, and the Law in Practice (Oxford 2007), ch. 1, pp. 50–51.

139 Salop, S. and White, L., “Economic Analysis of Private Antitrust Litigation” (1986) 74 Geo.L.J. 1001Google Scholar.

140 See note 55 above.

141 Whish, note 52 above, pp. 115 ff, 335–336.

142 Consten and Gruding v. Commission Cases 56/64 & 58/64 [1966] C.M.L.R. 418.

143 Northern Pacific Railway Company v. U.S. 356 U.S. 1 (1957), 5, Black J.

144 Kenny, A., “Intention and Purpose” (1966) 63 J.Phil. 642CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

145 Compagnie Royale Asturienne des Mines S.A. v. Commission Cases 29-30/83 [1985] 1 C.M.L.R. 688, at [26].

146 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. U.S. 221 U.S. 1 (1911).

147 E.g., Institute of Independent Insurance Brokers v. DGFT [2001] CAT 4, at [169]–[171].

148 O. Odudu, The Boundaries of EC Competition Law. The Scope of Article 81 (New York 2006), pp. 114 ff.

149 Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. U.S. 246 U.S. 231 (1918), 238, Brandeis J.

150 W. Van Gerven, “Private Enforcement of EC Competition Rules in the ECJ-Courage v. Crehan and the Way Ahead” in J. Basedow (ed.), Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law (Netherlands 2007), 19–38.

151 Sherman Act 1890, s. 5(a).

152 Competition Act 1998, s. 58A.

153 J. Lever, “Effective Private Enforcement of RC Antitrust Rules substantive Remedies: The viewpoint of an English Lawyer” in C–D. Ehlermann and I. Atanasiu (eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2000: The Modernisation of EC Antitrust Policy (Oxford 2001), 109–117.

154 Holmes, K., “Public Enforcement or Private Enforcement? Enforcement of Competition Law in the EC and UK” (2004) 25 E.C.L.R. 25Google Scholar.

155 Jacobs, F., “Civil Enforcement of EEC Antitrust Law” (1984) 82 Mich.L.Rev. 1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156 Arkin v. Borchard Lines [2005] EWCA Civ. 655.

157 R. Nazzini, Concurrent Proceedings in Competition Law (New York 2004), pp. 79 ff.

158 Frank J., Associated Industries of New York State, Inc. v. Ickes 134 F.2d 694 (2nd Cir. 1943), 704.

159 E. Paulis, “Policy issues in the Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law” in Basedow, note 146 above, 7–16.

160 I.e., in Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. v. Mason [1993] 2 C.M.L.R. 293.

161 Rodger, B.: “Private Enforcement of Competition Law, the Hidden Story: Competition Litigation Settlements in the United Kingdom, 2000–2005” (2008) 29 E.C.L.R. 96, p.115Google Scholar; “Competition Law Litigation in the UK Courts” (2006) E.C.L.R. 241, 279, 341.

162 Clayton Act 1914, s. 4, §§ 12–27.

163 Posner, note 40 above, p. 328.

164 Civil Procedure Rules, 44.3.(2)(a).

165 Snyder, E. and Kauper, T., “Misuse of the Antitrust Laws: The Competitor Plaintiff” (1991) 90 Mich.L.Rev. 551, pp. 596 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

166 Wireless Group Plc v. Radio Joint Audience Research Ltd. [2005] U.K.C.L.R. 203, at [53], Lloyd J.

167 Callery v. Gray [2001] EWCA Civ. 1117.

168 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, ss. 58, 58A.

169 See, e.g., Austin, A., “Negative Effects of Treble Damage Actions: Reflections on the New Antitrust Strategy” (1978) Duke L.J. 1353Google Scholar; Baumol, W. and Ordover, J., “Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition Antitrust and Economic Efficiency” (1985) 28 J.L.E. 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

170 Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. 429 U.S. 477 (1977).

171 Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois 431 U.S. 720 (1977).

172 Associated General Contractors of California v. California State Council of Carpenters 459 U.S. 519 (1983).

173 Page, W., “The Scope of Liability for Antitrust Violations” (1985) 37 Stan.L.Rev. 1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

174 Crane, D., “Optimizing Private Antitrust Enforcement” (2010) 63 Vand.L.Rev. 675, p. 686Google Scholar.

175 Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. 392 U.S. 481 (1968).

176 Landes, W. and Posner, R., “Should Indirect Purchasers Have Standing to Sue under the Antitrust Laws – An Economic Analysis of the Rule of Illinois Brick” (1979) 46 U.Chi.L.Rev. 602CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

177 Ceniz, F., “Antitrust Damages Actions: Lessons for American Indirect Purchasers' Litigation” (2010) 59 I.C.L.Q. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

178 As suggested in Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. Birmingham CC [1997] Q.B. 380 and resolved in Marks &Spencer Plc v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 1152.

179 R. Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts, 9th ed (New York 2008), p. 1255.

180 D. Beard, “Damages in Competition Law Litigation” in T. Ward and K. Smith (eds.), Competition Litigation in the UK (London 2005), ch. 7, pp. 274 ff.

181 BCL Old v. Aventis [2005] CAT 2.

182 Petrucci, C., “The Issues of the Passing-on Defence and Indirect Purchasers' Standing in European Competition Law” (2008) 29 E.C.L.R. 96Google Scholar.

183 Jacobs, note 155 above, pp. 1368, 1374; P. Areeda and L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text, Cases, 5th ed (New York 1997), p. 74.

184 Atiyah, P., “Negligence and Economic Loss” (1967) 83 L.Q.R. 248Google Scholar, p. 270.

185 Rizzo, M., “A Theory of Economic Loss in the Law of Torts” (1982) 11 J.L.S. 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

186 Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 327 U.S. 251 (1946), 264–265, Stone, C.J.

187 Enron Coal Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v. English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd [2009] CAT 36.

188 Ibid, particularly at [41]–[42], [45], [47], [165].

189 Lord Blackburn, Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas 25, 39; T. Weir, “Complex Liabilities” in A. Tunc (chief ed.), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Tübingen 1976), vol. 11, ch. 12, p. 5.

190 Cane, P., “Mens Rea in Tort Law” (2000) 20 O.J.L.S. 533CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 548.

191 [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [60]–[62], Lord Hoffmann.

192 Williams, G., “The Aims of the Law of Tort” (1951) C.L.P. 137Google Scholar, p. 138.

193 Goldberg, J., “Twentieth-century Tort Theory” (2003) 91 Geo.L.J. 513Google Scholar.

194 G. Postema, “Introduction: Search for an Explanatory Theory of Torts” in G. Postema (ed.), Philosophy and the Law of Torts (Cambridge 2001), ch. 1.

195 Weinrib, note 38 above.

196 J. Coleman, Risks and Wrongs (New York 1992).

197 Fletcher, G., “Corrective Justice for Moderns” (1993) 106 H.L.R. 1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

198 Neyers, J., “The Economic Torts as Corrective Justice” (2009) 17 Torts L.J. 1Google Scholar.

199 Shavell, note 37 above, p. 297.

200 Coleman, note 196 above, pp. 198, 371; A. Beever, “Justice and Punishment in Tort: A Comparative Theoretical Analysis” in Ch. Rickett (ed.), Justifying Private Law Remedies (Portland 2008), ch. 11.

201 Reich, N., “The ‘Courage’ Doctrine: Encouraging or Discouraging Compensation for Antitrust Injuries” (2005) 42 C.M.L. Rev. 35Google Scholar.

202 Snyder and Kauper, note 165 above.

203 R. Robin, “Past as Prelude: The Legacy of Five Landmarks of Twentieth-Century Injury Law for the Future of Torts” in S. Madden (ed.), Exploring Tort Law (Cambridge 2005), ch. 2.

204 Chapman, B. and Trebilcock, M., “Punitive Damages: Divergence in Search of a Rationale” (1989) 40 Ala.L.Rev. 742Google Scholar.

205 Sharkey, C., “Punitive Damages as Societal Damages” (2003) 113 Y.L.J. 347CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 358, p. 364.

206 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

207 Ellis, D., “Fairness and Efficiency in the Law of Punitive Damages” (1982) 56 S.Cal.L.Rev. 1Google Scholar.

208 Breit, W. and Elzinga, K., “Antitrust Enforcement and Economic Efficiency: The Uneasy Case for Treble Damages” (1974) 17 J.L.E. 329CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

209 C. Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments (1764), trans. by J. Grigson (New York 1996), pp. 49–50; Bentham, note 103 above, ch. 14, §8, p. 166; Sharkey, note 205 above.

210 Becker, G., “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach” (1968) 76 J.Pol.Econ. 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

211 Cooter, R., “Economic Analysis of Punitive Damages” (1982) 56 S.Cal.L.Rev. 79Google Scholar.

212 Landes, W. and Posner, R., “The Private Enforcement of the Law” (1975) 4 J.Leg.Stud. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

213 Polinsky, M. and Shavell, S., “Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis” (1998) H.L.R. 869, pp. 954–955Google Scholar.

214 Hylton, K., “Punitive Damages and the Economic Theory of Penalties” (1998) 87 Geo.L.J. 421Google Scholar.

215 Morris, C., “Punitive Damages in Tort Cases” (1931) 44 H.L.R. 1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Birks, note 82 above, p. 37; J. Edelman, “In Defence of Exemplary Damages” in Rickett, note 200 above, ch. 10.

216 D. Owen, “Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law” in Owen, note 82 above, ch. 9, pp. 205, 219 ff.

217 Lancashire CC v. Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd. [1997] Q.B. 897.

218 Zipursky, B., “A Theory of Punitive Damages” (2005) 84 Tex.L.Rev. 105Google Scholar.

219 Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome [1972] A.C. 1027, 1039, Lord Hailsham L.C.

220 [1964] A.C. 1129.

221 Ibid, 1221, 1226–8.

222 Weinrib, note 38 above, pp. 114, 134–135.

223 E.g., Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (4th Dist., 1981).

224 Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co 729 S.W.2d 768 Tex.Ct.App. (1987).

225 See, for example, Schwartz, G., “Deterrence and Punishment in the Common Law of Punitive Damages: A Comment” (1982) 56 S.Cal.L.Rev. 133Google Scholar; A. Burrows, “Judicial Remedies” in A. Burrows (ed.), English Private Law, 2nd ed (Oxford 2007), ch. 21, pp. 1677–8.

226 [2008] 2 All E.R. 249, [2009] 3 All E.R. 27.

227 [2008] 2 All E.R. 249, at [43]–[69].

228 [2009] 3 All E.R. 27.

229 Odudu, O. and Virgo, G., “Remedies for Breach of Statutory Duty” (2009) 68 C.L.J. 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheehan, D., “Competition Law Meets Restitution for Wrongs” (2009) 125 L.Q.R. 222Google Scholar.

230 [2008] 2 All E.R. 249, at [19].

231 See note 178 above.

232 Cane, note 77 above, p. 115.

233 Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2002] 2 A.C. 122, at [66], Lord Nicholls.

234 Rodger, B., “Private Enforcement and the Enterprise Act: an Exemplary System of Awarding Damages” (2003) 24 E.C.L.R. 103Google Scholar, pp. 109 ff.

235 Galanter, M. and Luban, D., “Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism” 42 (1993) Am.U.L.Rev. 1393Google Scholar.

236 Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v. Scrimgeour (Asset Management) Ltd. Vickers [1997] A.C. 254, 280, Lord Steyn.