Economic Loss

Question 1

Spartan Steel &; Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973]

Answer 1

There is generally no duty of care in respect of pure economic loss

Question 2

Hedley Byre & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners [1963]

Answer 2

Negligent misstatement may give rise to a duty not to cause pure economic loss

Question 3

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991]

Answer 3

Shows there will be no duty for pure economic loss unless the four Hedley Byrne criteria are met

Question 4

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976]

Answer 4

Shows an example of the ‘special relationship’ under the Hedley Byre criteria.

Question 5

Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service [1996]

Answer 5

shows the second stage of the hedley Byre criteria ‘voluntary assumption of the risk’ must be satisfied to bring a claim for pure economic loss

Question 6

Lennon v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2004]

Answer 6

liability for a pure economic loss could arise where there was an express voluntary assumption of responsibility on which the claimant had relied.

Question 7

Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2006]

Answer 7

shows the second stage of the hedley Byre criteria ‘voluntary assumption of the risk’ must be satisfied to bring a claim for pure economic loss

Question 8

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990]

Answer 8

the 3rd & 4th stages of the Hedley Byre criteria ‘There must be reliance and it must be reasonable’ must be satisfied to bring a claim for pure economic loss

Question 9

Reeman v Department of Transport [1997]

Answer 9

Confirms the test from Caparo, ‘there must be reliance and it must be reasonable’ for a claim to be successful for a pure economic loss.

Question 10

Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000]

Answer 10

A claim could succeed as it was known by the accountants involved that the society would rely on the information provided.
Awareness of inevitable reliance may be sufficient to create a duty in respect of pure economic loss

Question 11

Smith v Eric S Bush [1990]

Answer 11

Awareness of inevitable reliance may be sufficient to create a duty in respect of pure economic loss

Question 12

Smith v Eric S Bush [1990]

Answer 12

Awareness of inevitable reliance may be sufficient to create a duty in respect of pure economic loss

Question 13

Scullion v Bank of Scotland plc [2011]

Answer 13

It was held the duty was not owed between a surveyor and a purchaser of a buy-to-let property,

Question 14

White v Jones [1995]

Answer 14

Shows the flexible approach the courts will take in the context of wills

Question 15

Esterbuizen v Allied Dunbar Assurance plc [1998]

Answer 15

the principle of the will-drafting cases was extended beyond solicitors to other companies offering will making services

Question 16

Gorham v British Telecommunications plc [2000]

Answer 16

A widow was able to sue for economic losses due to negligent information relied up from an insurance company regarding her husbands pension scheme.

Question 17

Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995]

Answer 17

Shows that the ‘wills’ principles also extend to cover the writing of references. The HL stated that recovery should not be confined to cases based on statements or advice but could include the provision of a service, where there had been the appropriate assumption of responsibility and reliance.