Duty of care as a threshold device (A) Flashcards
What was the test set out in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605?
It must be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose such a duty of care.
This widening or narrowing of the scope of the duty of care is known as the use of duty of care as a “threshold device”.
DoC as a threshold in PEL cases.
MacDonald v Federation Internationale des Football Associations 1999 SCLR 59.
- Attempt to sue FIFA because a match did not take place.
- Held that if this claim was accepted, it would open up a ridiculous amount of potential claims. Not fair, just and reasonable.
DoC as a threshold in careless misrepresentation cases.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] All ER 575, HL.
- HoL agreed there was a close enough relationship that a DoC existed, and so they would entertain a situation of PEL.
- However, HP refused to take responsibility in letter, so not liable.
Caparo.
Court decided that it was not an issue of misrepresentation as there was no reliance in the relationship; Dickman did not know the reason Caparo wanted the records.
Must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
Recent case on the scope of DoC (PEL).
Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA [2018] UKSC 43.
Bank was not aware of the situation, the relationship did not involve any responsibility on the part of the bank, and therefore the bank was not convicted.
Caparo test.
DoC in a personal injury case.
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council 2009 SLT 247.
- Ruled that it was impossible to inform every single person of every person who could potentially be dangerous, and so no responsibility can be assumed.
