Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php
Timestamp: 2019-01-24 04:46:19
Document Index: 796492415

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ', 'UKHL ']

Caparo1 is the landmark case which has created the tripartite test in establishing duty of care2. This test departs from Donoghue v Stevenson3 and the Wilberforce test laid down in Anns v Merton London Borough Council4 which starts from the assumption that there is a duty of care and that harm was foreseeable unless there is good reason to judge otherwise5. Whereas Caparo starts from the assumption no duty is owed unless the criteria of the three stage test is satisfied. These criteria are: Foreseeability, Proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty6. Yet this approach has been critiqued7 by over complicating “neighbour” principle in Donoghue. Moreover, there is an abundance of case law which moves away from the Caparo test altogether8.
“The inability of any single general principle to provide a practical test which can be applied to every situation to determine whether a duty of care is owed and if so, what is its scope.18“
Thus rendering the general application unclear. This is poignant in cases of physical injury illustrated by Perrett v Collins19 in which the last two stages of the Caparo test where debated20. It was Hobhouse LJ who argued that adopting the stipulations of Caparo: “extended decisions upon `economic` loss to cases of personal injuries”.21 Mirroring Lord Bridge in Caparo itself. Hobhouse LJ added that: “In the common law there has always been a distinct category for causing physical injury to the human body and to goods22“. This distinction is echoed by many academics who state that personal loss is the very substance on which the law of negligence is established.23 Therefore, the courts contend that it is this reasoning that issues that derive from economic loss, are different from issues of personal loss .Furthermore, Lord Hobhouse uses case law which corresponds with the case rather than the tripartite test24. This stance is upheld by the dissenting opinion of Lord Lloyd in Mark Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Marine25 who concluded that in order to resolve the case the clear-cut application of Donoghue need only apply.
This stance has been reiterated in the 21st Century, even in cases of pure economic loss.26 This is exemplified in Arthur JS Hall & Co. v Simons27, which mainly considers the third stage of the test, in which stage one and two where so obvious that discussion was left absent. This same approach in which judges see no reason to create a complicated three stage test is reverberated further in Customs & Excise v. Barclays Bank28. In the case it was considered whether the bank owed a duty of care when given knowledge that Customs had acquired a freezing order over the accounts of some of their customers. The judges ruled upon analysis of the third stage of the tripartite test29. Which has been regarded by some academics as: “A simple search for the best result30“. Further examination of the tripartite test in regards to pure economic loss is considered by Lord Geoff in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd31 which is, Identified as falling within the “Hedley Byrne32 principle”33 in which the test of Caparo is set aside34.
“In a state of transition or development as the HOL pointed out …. this is an area of law which is developing pragmatically and incrementally. It is pre-eminently an area in which the legal result is sensitive to the facts.”
19 1998 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255
21 1998 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255
All Answers ltd, 'Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2' (Lawteacher.net, January 2019) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1> accessed 24 January 2019
Teacher, Law. (November 2013). Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1
"Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 01 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1>.
"Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 24 January 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1 [Accessed 24 January 2019].
LawTeacher. Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 24 January 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1.
{{cite web|last=Teacher |first=Law |url=https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php?vref=1 |title=Caparo v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 |publisher=LawTeacher.net |date=November 2013 |accessdate=24 January 2019 |location=Nottingham, UK}}