PLRG Public Seminar, “The Marex Tort: a Nascent or Unnecessary Tort?” by Prof John Murphy

Where a defendant (D) induces a third party (T) to act in a way that contravenes the terms of a court order
granted in favour of a plaintiff (P) in an action brought by P against T, does D commit a tort that arises by
analogy with the wrong of inducing breach of contract? In the United Kingdom, there is growing support— among those on the bench and at the bar—for such a view. But such support ignores a number of juridical
hurdles that, in different ways, all stand in the way of portraying the action as a valuable addition to the tort law canon. Prime among these is the fact that court orders do not ordinarily invest winning plaintiffs with rights against T that are infringed when D induces T’s non-compliance with the court order. T is placed under a duty; but it is a duty owed to the court. All that D induces, then, is a contempt of court, but
not a private law wrong done by T to P.