The tort of intimidation is defined as follows.
“In Sid Ross, the NSW Court of Appeal found “strong authority for the proposition that if A, intending to injure C, by threatening B that he will commit an unlawful act against B, unless B refrains from The tort of intimidation is alive and well in Australian common law, despite a exercising his legal right to deal with C, induces B to refrain from so doing, A commits a wrong actionable at the suit of C”.
The case is also forensically interesting (to lawyers only I suppose) for the rejection of another argument put to the court namely that each State is a jurisdiction with its own common law and that one State does not affirm a particular component of common law merely because a high ranking court in another State concludes that it does. In other words, an inferior court of Victoria should follow a superior court of another State (in this case New South Wales) in interpreting the common law of Australia until told otherwise by the High Court; and not the other way around.”
Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd CFMEU (2014) VSC 429 delivered on 10 September 2014