Pure Economic Loss and Pure Psychiatric Harm

Question 1

Murphy v Brentwood Council. What is the ruling?

Answer 1

Pure economic loss cannot be claimed in Tort

Question 2

Hedley Byrne. What is the ruling?

Answer 2

Where a special relationship has been established, PEL is claimable

Question 3

Spartan Steel v Martin. What is the ruling?

Answer 3

Pure economic loss is not claimable, unless it is directly consequential from physical damage

Question 4

Pure economic loss is not claimable, even if it is as a consequence of a third party’s injury. What is the case?

Answer 4

London Borough of Islington v University College Hospital

Question 5

What is the initial case for Negligent misstatement?

Answer 5

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Question 6

What are the four tests in Caparo v Dickman for the existence of a special relationship between the two parties?

Answer 6

1. Did the advisor know the purpose of the advice?
2. Did the adviser know that the advise would be communicated?
3. Did the adviser know the advice would be acted upon without independent investigation?
4. Was the advice acted upon?

Question 7

White v Jones. What is the case?

Answer 7

A solicitor was found to owe a duty of care to the children of a person making a will

Question 8

Spring v Guardian Assurance. What is the ruling?

Answer 8

An employer was found to be liable for making a negligent misstatement in giving a reference.

Question 9

What is the judgement in Smith v Eric Bush?

Answer 9

An exclusion notice on a contract was found not to meeet the requirement of reasonableness.

Question 10

Weller v Food and Mouth. What is the ruling?

Answer 10

No duty for pure economic loss even when there is physical damage to a resource that is relied on.

Question 11

Pure economic loss is not claimable, unless it is directly consequential from physical damage. What is the case?

Answer 11

Spartan Steel v Martin

Question 12

Advice given, even on a social occasion, can create a special relationship. Which case?

Answer 12

Chaudhry v Prabhakar

Question 13

What are the basic criteria for an afflication to count as “pure psychiatric harm”?

Answer 13

It must be:

-Caused by a sudden shock
AND
A medically recognised psychiatric illness
OR
A shock induced physical condition

Question 14

Page v Smith. What is the ruling?

Answer 14

For a claim to succeed with relation to primary victims

• It is not neceessary for that psyciatric harm to be reasonably foreseeable
• Victims must have been reasonably able to foresee physical injury
• Victims must be in “the danger zone”.

Question 15

For a claim to succeed with relation to primary victims

• It is not neceessary for that psyciatric harm to be reasonably foreseeable
• Victims must have been reasonably able to foresee physical injury
• Victims must be in “the danger zone”.

Which case?

Answer 15

Page v Smith.

Question 16

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Answer 16

For secondary victims

• It must be reasonably foreseeable that psychiatric harm would be incurred.
• There must be a relationship of love and affection between the primary victim and secondary victim
• They must see with their own eyes

Question 17

In which case did a mother see her family in hospital after a crash. Was she able to claim?

Answer 17

Yes. McLouglin v O’Brian

Question 18

Will rescuers automatically be primary victims? Which case?

Answer 18

No. White v Chief Constable.