Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 18:14
From: John Murphy
Subject: OBG v Allen, Stratford v. Lindley and Lumley
I see the point you are making; and it sits not uncomfortably with the final words of the second excerpt I included in my earlier posting. But I can't see why Lord Hoffmann would bother to talk about "sufficient causal connection" if he was so determined that only direct inducement would count. Why go to the trouble of showing the absence of inducement in the Daily Mirror case? He could have simply said, "only direct procurement suffices for the classic Lumley v Gye tort", and left it at that. And why say that Denning was making good sense when he averred that it was unnecessary getting caught up on directness and indirectness?
Unless you can find any clearer passages in his speech, I think it is simply going to be a matter of debate for the future because, in truth, what he says is more concerned with the difference between the Lumley v Gye tort and the unlawful means tort. Notwithstanding what you say I prefer my own interpretation, for now. But I'll read the case comment with interest. Thanks for flagging it up.
And what about everyone else?????
From: Jason Neyers
Subject: Re: ODG: OBG v Allen, Stratford v. Lindley and Lumley
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:03:24 -0400
I found a case comment on Stratford that suggests that I am right that according to traditional Lumley (which the HL returned to) there should be no liability in my second example. If it is indirect ('attacks' to the subject matter or parties involved in the contract) then you need to make out unlawful interference (28 Modern Law Rev 207).
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next