Legal Case Summary
Lumley v Gye [1853] 2 E & B 216
Tort – Wrongdoing – cause of action against third party
Facts
Miss Wagner was an opera singer at Lumley’s theatre on a three month contract. Gye and Wagner made an agreement that Wagner would break her contract and refuse to sing at Lumley’s theatre. Wagner agreed to sing at Gye’s theatre only.
Issue
Whether Lumley had a cause of action against a third party for wrongdoing and whether he was entitled to claim damages.
Decision / Outcome
Wagner and Gye were joint wrongdoers as they conspired together, causing loss. Where a third party interferes, either intentionally and or maliciously with the performance of the contract, they are liable for any loss (in the form of damages) that arises from the interference, either individually or jointly. Any persuasion used to influence a contracting party to breach their contractual obligations could go towards proving the third party demonstrated an intention to interfere and cause loss. The court held, there were two propositions that determined whether a third party could be liable for an actionable tort. Either, the person whose persuasions to break the contract was liable, or that the action of seducing a person from a contract, or persuading a person who has contracted for service was found liable for damages for their interference. Thus, it was deemed that the application was wide enough to encompass the current case where it would apply to an opera singer. In the event that a contract is broken and does result in a loss of sorts, if there was no knowledge of the breach by a third party and or no intention to cause loss, they will not be liable to pay damages. Lumley did have a cause of action and Gye (the third party) was required to pay damages.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains historically and legally accurate. Lumley v Gye [1853] 2 E & B 216 is a foundational authority in English tort law and continues to be recognised as the origin of the tort of inducing breach of contract (sometimes called the tort of unlawful interference with contractual relations).
The core principle established in the case — that a third party who knowingly and intentionally induces another to breach their contract may be liable in tort — remains good law. However, readers should be aware of significant subsequent developments. The tort has been substantially refined and restated by the Supreme Court in OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, which is now the leading authority. In that case, the House of Lords (as it then was) clarified the elements of the tort and importantly distinguished it from the broader (and more contested) tort of causing loss by unlawful means. OBG confirmed that liability for inducing breach of contract requires: (1) knowledge of the contract; (2) an intention to induce its breach; and (3) an actual breach resulting in damage. This aligns broadly with the principles described in this summary, though the Supreme Court’s analysis is considerably more nuanced.
Students relying on this summary for academic purposes should ensure they also study OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 alongside Lumley v Gye, as the modern law cannot be fully understood from the 1853 decision alone.
