Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. Bloch
England and Wales Court of Appeal
2 All E.R. 72 (1983)
- Written by Elizabeth Yingling, JD
Facts
Dr. Maurice Bloch (defendant), a resident of England, entered into a contract with Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd (SK&F), an English company, to develop compounds to treat stomach disorders. English law governed the contract. After SK&F conducted field trials on the compounds, SK&F notified Bloch that the results were disappointing and terminated the relationship. SK&F was responsible for all decisions relating to registration and marketing of products in the United Kingdom. Bloch sued SK&F and its American parent company (plaintiffs) in the United States, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with a contract by the parent company, and emotional distress, and sought $160 million in damages. Bloch claimed that SK&F and its parent intended to keep Bloch’s product off the market so that it would not compete with another SK&F product. Bloch admitted that he sued in an American court because his lawyers took the case for a contingency fee and it would cost him substantially more money to sue in an English court. Most of the witnesses in the case were English residents. Over the objections of SK&F and its parent, the American court allowed Bloch’s suit to proceed. SK&F and its American parent sued in an English court to enjoin Bloch from proceeding in the United States.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Denning, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.