John Eldridge is Pupil Barrister at Serle Court, UK.Michael Douglas is Senior Lecturer at The University of Western Australia Law School.Claudia Carr is a Lawyer at Herbert Smith Freehills, Australia.

• IntroductionJohn Eldridge Serle Court, London, UK, Michael Douglas, University of Western Australia and Claudia Carr, Clifford Chance 2. The ‘Property’ Paradigm in Torts Protecting Contractual Interests Zhong Xing Tan, National University of SingaporeI. Introduction II. The Property Paradigm III. Problems with the Property Paradigm IV. Towards a Pluralistic Conception V. Conclusion 3. Defamation as an Economic Tort Michael Douglas, University of Western AustraliaI. Introduction II. What Criteria Determine the Identity of the Economic Torts? III. The Interest Protected by Defamation IV. How the Underlying Interest is Protected by Defamation Law: Remedies V. The Serious Harm Threshold VI. Why it Matters 4. Regulating Labour Relations in the Twenty-First Century: What Role for the Economic Torts? Andrew Stewart, University of Adelaide, Australia and Shae McCrystal, University of Sydney, AustraliaI. The Development of Economic Tort Liability for Industrial Action II. The Current State of the Common Law III. Statutory Limitations IV. Use of the Economic Torts by Employers V. The Right to Strike as a Normative Justification for Excluding or Limiting the Economic Torts VI. Towards ‘Coherence’ in Liability for Industrial Action5. Inducing Breach of Contract Dr Katy Barnett, University of Melbourne, AustraliaI. Introduction II. History of Inducing Breach of Contract III. The Tort of Inducing Breach of Contract in Australia Today IV. Stepping Back: The Nature of the Primary Wrong V. Conclusion 6. Cross-Border Civil Conspiracy Dr Bobby WM Lindsay, University of Glasgow, UKI. Introduction II. The Present State of the Conspiracy Tort(s) III. Jurisdiction IV. Choice of Law V. Unlawful Means under Foreign Law? VI. Conclusion 7. Economic Wrongs and Private Nuisance: A Common Law Perspective Paula Giliker, University of Bristol, UKI. Introduction II. Interference with economic Interests in Private Nuisance III. Interference with economic Interests: Remedies IV. Interference with economic Interests: Tensions with Negligence? V. Conclusions 8. Revisiting Injurious Falsehood Hilary Young, University of New Brunswick, CanadaI. Introduction II. The Tort of Injurious Falsehood III. Empirical Study of Injurious Falsehood IV. Final Thoughts V. Conclusion 9. Regulation of GM Farming via Private Nuisance Anna Bunn Curtin University, Australia and Michael Douglas, University of Western AustraliaI. Introduction II. GM Farming and its Regulation III. Private Nuisance as a Vehicle for Regulation IV. Application to GM Farming V. Conclusion 10. Misfeasance by Directors: Past, Present and Future The Hon Geoffrey Nettle AC KC, former Justice of the High Court of Australia and Daniel Farinha, Eleven Wentworth, SydneyI. Introduction II. Development of the Duty III. Statutory Intervention IV. Prospects for the Future 11. Fiduciaries, Equitable Compensation and Lost Commercial Opportunity: Reconciling the Need for Financial Loss Simone Degeling, University of New South Wales, AustraliaI. Is the Lost Commercial Opportunity Productive of Financial Loss? II. Certainty of Loss and Equitable Compensation III. Normative Accounts of Fiduciary Obligations 12. Lawful Act Duress: Part of the Solution to Problematic Banking Practices? Claudia Carr, Clifford ChanceI. Introduction II. Problematic Banking Practices III. Addressing the Issue through Lawful Act Duress IV. Conclusion 13. Developing a Rational Law of Misleading Conduct Elise Bant, University of Western Australia and Jeannie Marie Paterson, University of Melbourne, AustraliaI. Introduction II. The Core Statutory Norm Prohibiting Misleading Conduct III. Wrong Turns Taken IV. Getting Back on Track V. Conclusion 14. Interference by Precedent Samuel Beswick, University of British Columbia, CanadaI. Introduction II. Immunity from Retrospective Mistakes of Law? III. Immunity from Abolition of Immunity? IV. Immunity from ‘Judicial Takings’? Two Paradigm Cases V. Limits on Uncertainty