DOC: PEL

Question 1

Murphy v Brentwood District Council (quote)

Answer 1

Inflicting physical injury to property or person = requires justification

“the causing of economic loss does not”

Question 2

Conarken Group v Network Rail Instruction

Answer 2

CEL case

• damages just restricted by remoteness
• but here not too remote

Question 3

Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co (Contractors)

Answer 3

Types of claim:
1) damage to molten metal in furnace at the time (recoverable = physical damage)

2) loss of profit re: material in furnace at the time (recoverable = CEL)
3) loss of profit of further melts they would have made in time power was disrupted (non-recoverable = PEL)

Question 4

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board

Answer 4

Lord Millet – rejects idea that PEL and CEL should be analytical categories

Question 5

Wagon Mound I

Answer 5

If physical injury leads to CEL

• CEL is recoverable if reasonably foreseeable that that kind of loss would occur

Question 6

Anns v Merton London Borough

Answer 6

HL allowed claim for recovery of repair costs

- precise principale on which HL based decision = unclear

Question 7

D&F Estates Ltd v Church Comrs for England

Answer 7

HL said remedial work damages was NOT recoverable because it was pure economic loss (NO DAMAGE SO NO DOC)

Question 8

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991]

Answer 8

PEL so no claim because no damage

• you can have damage if something else was damaged (e.g. ceiling fell onto piano, claim for piano)
• house can be split into parts (electric wires –> fire –> recoverable for damage to house)

Question 9

Defective Premises Act 1972 s.1

Answer 9

Person owes a duty to make sure dwelling is “fir for habitation”

Question 10

Hedley Bryne - assumption of responsibility test

Answer 10

1) D assumed responsibility towards C

2) C reasonably relied on assumption of responsibility

Question 11

EXPRESS assumption of responsibility

Answer 11

Calvert v William Hill

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods - no because on company letter head, so D didn’t personally assume responsibility

Question 12

assumption of responsibility IMPLIED from relationship

Answer 12

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates

• has D held himself out as having some kind of advantage over C in the form of special skill or special knowledge, that will be exercised for C’s benefit
• if yes, then assumption of responsibility

Question 13

Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc

Answer 13

DOC because D = employer who holds himself out to have special knowledge about C

Question 14

White v Jones

Answer 14

No need for C&D to have contact/communication for an assumption of responsibility to arise

Question 15

Gorham v BT

Answer 15

Confirmed White v Jones (and clear here that C had absolutely no dealings with D)

• assumption of responsibility can be implied from the relationship without ANY contact between C & D

Question 16

does assumption need to be voluntary?

Answer 16

Hedley - yes

Smith v Eric S Bush - no

Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank - yes

Question 17

Caparo test - proximity requirements

Answer 17

ONE - statement must be intended for you

TWO - D must rely on statement for purpose statement was provided

Question 18

An informer v A Chief Constable

Answer 18

NO DOC because not FJR

• also esp because C only suffered financial damage (if physical, C could claim)
• police only have duty to safeguard C’s physical safety not economic wellbeing

Question 19

Merrett v Babb

Answer 19

MAJORITY - blend caparo and hedley

MINORITY - can’t blend, two tests = different concepts and language

Question 20

Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclay’s Bank

Answer 20

Use
1) Hedley, then if no DOC found

2) Caparo

NO incremental test