Intimidation

Intimidation

Intimidation consists of a threat by one person to another designed to cause the second person to act or to refrain from acting in a manner in which to he was entitled, to his own detriment or to the detriment of another. A threat is an intimation that unless the latter does or does not do something, the former will do something which the latter doesn’t like. It must be coercive.

There is a distinction between a threat and a mere warning. The threat must be to do something unlawful.  Where a person would not be liable for doing the act, he will not generally be liable for threatening to do it. See however below in relation to conspiracy.

A threat of violence or a criminal act will be unlawful.  A threat to do a  civil wrong, which is not criminal, will be unlawful.  A threat to breach a contract may be unlawful. If, for example, an employer dismisses someone due to a threat from a third party in breach of contract, liability would arise.

If A threatens to breach his contract with B, to the detriment of C, C would have a right to sue A. However, the actual breach of contract even intentionally normally gives C no right to do sue A.

It is necessary that the person has submitted to the threat and complied with the demands. An injunction may be forthcoming to prevent the threatened breach.

Justification may be a defence. However, the scope of the defence is uncertain.

Scope of Intimidation

The scope of the tort of intimidation is unclear in some respects. The essence of the tort is that the defendant makes a threat to the defendant and causes him to act or refrain from acting in a particular manner in which he is entitled to act, causing him loss or causing loss to a third-party.

The threat is intentional and coercive in nature. Liability is not based on the manner of communication, but on its content. The manner of the threat may be relevant to its coercive effect. However, a perfectly polite threat may be coercive.

The act threatened must be unlawful. The unlawful nature of the act may be criminal or civil. It appears well established that a threat to breach of contract, is unlawful for this purpose. The issue has arisen in the context of industrial relations and strike action.

The threat of an immediate strike in breach of contract, made for the purpose of compelling a particular course of action would attract liability, in the absence of the limited defence of justification or under the Industrial Relations Act.

The person threatened, whether the claimant or another, must have given in to the threat. If the threat is resisted, there is no liability.

It is thought that the scope of the defence of justification in the context of intimidation is narrow.