Chalfont St Peter Parish Council v Holy Cross Sisters Trustees Incorporated

The unlawful means tort remains confined to carefully defined economic interests. It requires deliberate use of unlawful means affecting a third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, with an intention to cause the claimant economic loss. A political, aspirational or non-economic interest in the exercise of public functions is insufficient. Deceit requires a false representation, dishonesty, intended reliance, actual reliance and resulting damage. A claimant cannot recover expenditure or litigation costs merely because they followed an allegedly tortious event where the expenditure was independent of the wrongdoing and did not restore the claimant to its counterfactual position.

The Parish Council claimed that the Holy Cross Sisters, through a conspiracy involving false statements about the former use of playing areas at a closed school, had procured planning permission for development of the Grange site. It also alleged interference with its interests by unlawful means.

The alleged statements were made to the planning authority, not to the Parish Council. The Parish Council claimed losses including expenditure on local planning initiatives and the costs of unsuccessful judicial review proceedings challenging the planning decision. The issues included conspiracy, deceit, intention, causation, recoverable interests and loss.

1. Claims dismissed. Each tort claim failed and was dismissed.
2. An unlawful means conspiracy required an agreement to use unlawful means, an intention to cause damage, and damage. The alleged unlawful means were deceit, but the evidence did not establish an agreement between the relevant individuals. Although one caretaker had dishonestly made a misleading statement about the marking of Area A for sporting purposes between 2001 and 2006, that did not establish the alleged conspiracy.
3. Deceit required false representations made knowingly or recklessly, an intention that the claimant act on them, actual reliance and resulting damage. The representations were made to the District Council. The Parish Council neither relied on them nor suffered loss through reliance. The alternative allegation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 was not established.
4. The unlawful means tort, as explained in OBG Limited v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, was to be kept within careful and conservative bounds. It protected economic interests and involved unlawful interference with a third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, intended to cause the claimant loss. The Parish Council’s political or aspirational interest in relocating a school was not a protected economic interest. The reasoning in British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch 556 and Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird [2009] EWHC 1253 (QB) did not assist.
5. The alleged misrepresentations did not cause the planning permission. The planning officer’s evidence showed that the recommendation would have been unchanged, and the Committee’s reasons did not treat the information about Area A as critical. The Parish Council also failed to show that its claimed expenditure or judicial review costs were losses caused by the alleged torts. The earlier proceedings were directed to independent grounds and were not reasonable mitigation in the relevant sense.
6. Nor was the necessary intention to harm the Parish Council established. The evidence showed steps taken to advance the planning application, not conduct directed against the Parish Council.