000			01927cad a22002175a 4500
001			L142707
008			080303e20071211xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u142707
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMeretz Investments NV and another v ACP Ltd and others _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] EWCA Civ 1303, 11 December 2007. Considers whether a party which acted to protect its own interests in the belief it had the right to do so and caused detriment to the interests of another party, had the intention to cause harm for purposes of the tort of inducing breach of contract. The appellants (M) were sister companies owning freehold of flats. The respondents (A) were companies, one of whom was a subsidiary of the other. When the subsidiary's development of a property encountered problems, possession of the property was sold by the superior company which prevented M from exercising its leaseback option. M appealed the judge's decision, arguing that A were liable for damages due to M's loss of the leaseback option; and that they were liable to M in damages for economic torts. "Held": The subsidiary company of A was liable to M for its loss of leaseback option due to the sale option being exercised. The judge had erred in failing to reach this finding. However M's charge that the companies of A had acted in conspiracy was unfounded. They had shown sound reason for the belief their actions were valid. Appeal allowed in part.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMERETZ INVESTMENTS NV AND ANOTHER V ACP LTD AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S114
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-COMMERCIAL LEASES
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1303.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c79915 _d79915