Unit 3 Flashcards
(7 cards)
A checklist of the overall test derived from both Hedley Byrne And Caparo is as follows:
Is there a special relationship between the defendant and the claimant?
Did the defendant assume a responsibility towards the claimant?
Did the defendant know the purpose for which the advice was required?
Did the defendant know that the advice would be communicated to the claimant (either specifically or as a member of an ascertainable class)?
Did the defendant know that the claimant was likely to act on the advice without independent inquiry?
Was the advice acted on by the claimant to its detriment?
The Hedley principle is extended in cases where the negligent statement was made to a third party by the defendant to the detriment of the claimant (Spring)
White v Jones - the extension of the Hedley principle from negligent statements to pure economic loss caused in negligent provision of professional services. Like lawyers.
IN MOST CASES, why it is classed as pure economic loss?
because there isn’t a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and defendant.
Examples of PEL:
if the damage a customer has suffered is economic loss caused by acquiring a defective item of property. In the Murphy case, the cracks in the house became apparent before it had caused any physical damage. Therefore the courts held that the claimant had just acquired something which was less valuable than the price they had paid for it.
There is also economic loss caused by damage to the property of a third party (Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (1973). the result in Spartan Steel would have been different if the claimant had been the owner of the damaged electricity cable. The lost profit during the time that the electricity was cut off would have been recoverable. This is because it would have been consequential economic loss, following on from damage to property belonging to the claimant (the cable). Like if someone crashed and made you late to work and you have to spend more money on a train ticket.
There is no pure economic loss where there is no personal injury or damage to property (Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute 1966).
Exclusion of liability:
The requirements for a defendant to rely on an exclusion notice are, reasonable steps must have been taken to bring the exclusion notice to the claimant’s attention before the tort was committed, and the wording of the notice must cover the loss.
The defendant cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence. This is under s 2(1) of UCTA 1977 and s 65(1) of CRA 2015. With regard to any other type of loss or damage, the defendant can exclude or restrict their liability only if the exclusion satisfies the requirements of reasonableness under s 2(2) of UCTA 1977 or fairness under s 62 of CRA 2015.
Hedley Byrne
The relationship was considered to be close enough in this case of negligent statements.
The two elements of a special relationship here are, a. An assumption of responsibility by the defendant; b. Reasonable reliance by the claimant.
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1994]
Spring extends the
Hedley Byrne principle to this
wider class of cases. It can be explained on the basis that the employer had assumed a
responsibility to the claimant to take care in providing the reference
White v Jones
the extension of the Hedley principle from negligent statements to pure economic loss caused in negligent provision of professional services. Like lawyers.
