Tort Law – Reading Lists
PLEASE NOTE: The reading-lists published on this website are NOT the official Oxford University Law Faculty reading lists for tort law.
Tort Week 8 - Economic Torts	H2002
*McBride & Bagshaw, Chs. 16, 17 & 18, Winfield & J, Ch 18 (654-67 in brief) or Markesinis & D, pp. 466-92 *Weir, Casebook on Tort (9th ed.), pp. 567-618 *Weir, Economic Torts (1997), especially pp. 1-43 (discussed by Bagshaw (1998) 18 Ox JLS 729) (Popular articles) Carty 104 LQR 250, Sales & Stilitz 115 LQR 411 (New … perhaps overtakes articles) Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts (OUP, 2001), ch. 10 (advanced) Cane, Tort Law & Economic Interests (2^nd ed. 1996), esp. chs 3,4 & 5 (for difficult issues)
The Most Important Case in Tort Law? *Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1 (use, Weir, Casebook, pp. 594-599)
Fraud / Deceit (see Contract Course for cases on measure of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation) *Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (also read, Weir, Casebook, pp. 570-575)
Procuring a Breach of Contract Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E & B 216 [118 English Reports 749] (Weir, Casebook, pp. 584-588) Emerald Construction v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691 Brimelow v Casson [1924] 1 Ch 302 *Hill v First National [1988] 3 All ER 801 (O'Dair, 11 OxJLS 227) Bagshaw, ‘Inducing Breach of Contract’, Ch 7 in Horder ed., Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (4th) (2000) - extensions (or has a borderline been crossed?) *Thompson v Deakin [1952] Ch 646 *Torquay Hotel v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch 106 *Merkur Island Shipping v Laughton [1983] 2 AC 570 Middlebrook Mushrooms v TGWU [1993] ICR 612 Millar v Bassey [1994] Ent & Media LR 44 (also Weir, Economic Torts, appendix A)
Intimidation *Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, at 1164-1169 & 1203-1210 (Weir, Casebook, pp. 600-602) Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 QB 710, at 724B-728D, 738B-739D - economic duress - This will have been covered by your contract course - Consider how it ties in.
Interference with Trade by Unlawful Means Merkur Island, supra *Lonrho v Fayed [1989] 2 All ER 65 (CA) [NB, subsequent decision of HL on conspiracy issue] See also articles by Carty, Sales & Stilitz, and Weir, Economic Torts (1997)
Procuring Violation of a Legal Right (related to Lumley v Gye?) *Acrow v Chainbelt [1971] 1 WLR 1676 *Law Debenture Trust v Ural Caspian [1995] 1 All ER 157 *CBS v Amstrad [1988] AC 1013 (aiding and abetting a tort?) Credit Lyonnais v ECGD [1999] 1 All ER 929, HL
Conspiracy *Mogul Steamship v McGregor [1892] AC 25 (Weir, Casebook, pp. 588-594) Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 *Crofter Hand Woven Tweed v Veitch [1942] AC 435 Huntley v Thornton [1957] 1 WLR 321 Scala Ballroom v Ratcliffe [1958] 1 WLR 1057 Lonrho v Shell [1982] AC 193 *Lonrho v Fayed [1991] 3 All ER 303 (HL) (Weir, Casebook, pp. *616, Bridge and *617, points 3, 4 & 5) Lonrho v Fayed (No. 5) [1994] 1 All ER 188 Sales, 49 CLJ 491 (NB some of this is out of date after HL decision in L v F)
Passing Off and Injurious Falsehood Salmond & Heuston, ch 18 (or - advanced - Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts, chs 7 & 8)
Strategic guidance This is a difficult week's work. You will have to read quite a lot of material (so use WEIR’s casebook!) AND leave yourself plenty of time to think it through. However, because it is perceived as a difficult topic it is one which is rarely attempted in Schools Papers. (Indeed in 1991 half the candidates attempting the question only did so because they thought that the question was actually about negligently inflicted economic loss! In 1993 only 4 candidates answered the straightforward essay question on the economic torts.) Despite being rarely attempted, questions on this topic are regularly set, and those who make the effort are generously rewarded by the examiners, because the questions are thought to be so hard. If you invested by attending R Bagshaw’s lectures then you ought to know quite a bit about this week’s work already. If you didn’t make this investment then you may think that it is nonetheless worthwhile to get hold of some of the lecture hand-outs. They are at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mans0322/1etleh.html
Essays: 1994 To what extent do the economic torts illuminate other areas of tort law? 1993 Should the economic torts be reformed? 1992 "Outside the context of Trade Union activity the economic torts are not justified in a free market economy." Discuss. 1991 "A confused and confusing mixture of overlapping principles with no coherent underlying rationale." Consider this comment on the law relating to pure economic loss caused by deliberate acts. 1990 "If the law of economic torts is in a mess it is largely because of uncertainty over what constitutes unlawful means." Discuss. 1989 "Now, intentionally to do that which is calculated in the ordinary couse of events to damage, and which does damage another, in fact, in that person's property or trade, is actionable if done without just cause or excuse." (Mogul SS Co. v McGregor (1889) per Bowen LJ). Is this the law today? Should it be?
Please write an answer to the following: Write an advisory paper for the Law Commission, proposing how the economic torts should be reformed, and explaining why such changes are desirable.
Links to other reading lists: 1. Negligence 1: Fault 2. Negligence 2: Duty of Care (General) 3. Negligence 3: Causation and Remoteness 4. Negligence 4: Duties of Care (Occupiers, Builders & Employers) 5. Negligence 5: Duties of Care (Pure Economic Loss) 6. Alternatives to Negligence (incl. Product Liability, Insurance and Compensation Schemes) 7. Nuisance and Rylands v. Fletcher
Feedback: roderick.bagshaw@law.ox.ac.uk