Pure economic loss has, for some time, been a relatively difficult remedy as a “worth incurred without any physical injury to any asset of the plaintiff." Have the parameters been recently refined or do the courts still fear that if pure economic loss were actionable, there would be no reasonable limit to a defendant's liability and the courts would become overwhelmed with claims?

Ms. Rashda Rana SC will explore the development and the current status of claims for pure economic loss in England and Australia.

The Singapore approach to pure economic loss (financial loss unconnected with physical damage) is interesting for at least 2 reasons. Many of the leading cases, such as RSP v Ocean Front (1995),  Spandeck Engineering v DSTA (2007) and Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee (2011) involved construction disputes. Secondly, the Singapore Courts have consciously departed from established English law principles in recognising claims that would have failed in the English Courts. Mohan Pillay, who was lead Counsel before the Court of Appeal in a number of these cases including Ocean Front and Spandeck, will examine the rationale for the Singapore approach, why and where we have departed from English law principles, and what exposure contractors and consultants face today for claims in pure economic loss.