Economic Torts

• Main Author: LEE, Pey Woan
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2011
• Subjects: Asian Studies; Torts
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1110; https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9910491702601&context=L&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&isFrbr=true&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,the%20law%20of%20torts%20in%20singapore&sortby=date_d&facet=frbrgroupid,include,9020915483184108675&offset=0
• Institution: Singapore Management University

It has, on occasion, been suggested that Lumley v Gye should be understood as a particular manifestation of the more general principle that one commits a tort if he knowingly and intentionally procures an actionable wrong. Indeed, some support for this view can be found in English decisions that imposed liability for procuring the breach of statutory duty and for inducing the breach of an equitable duty. On the other hand, the suggestion that there is a tort of “procuring a breach of trust” has been firmly resisted because the rules on third-party and accessory liability are already well established in the law of trusts. On balance, therefore, the authorities do not yet support the proposition that a general tort of “procuring an actionable wrong” exists. Indeed, it is submitted that a sweeping extension of the principle in Lumley v Gye has little to commend itself. Given that each civil wrong is unique in the rights or interests it protects, the creation or extension of accessory liability in each context should be determined by close reference to the nature of the protected interests, as well as the policy concerns particular to that context.