The claimant could recover the damage done to his factory, but could not recover the loss of profit during the time the factory had to stop manufacturing the product. Damage to the property in progress was a physical while the loss of profits was pure economic and not recoverable.

Lord Denning, “I think the question of recovering loss is one of policy, […] It seems to me better to condier a particular relationship in hand and see whether or not economic loss should be recoverable or not”

The claimant was an advertising company that was offered work by a small company with whom they had no previous dealings. It sought a reference from the company’s bank, which was given without any checks being made into the current state of its finances. In reliance upon the banks preference, the claimant carried out work for the company which then went into liquidation before any payment was made. The claimant sought to recover its losses from the defendants bank on the basis of negligent misstatement. 

The HoL held that there were circumstances in which a person could be liable in tort for losses caused by a statement which he made if he did not take sufficient care to ensure that his statement was accurate or if he did not make it clear that he has not taken steps to ensure its accuracy.

This case further showed that in order to establish a claim in negligent misstatement, particulary with regards to ‘special relationship’, the claimant must prove that the defendan must have known that:

-       the claimant would be very likely to rely upon it, when deciding whether or not proceed with the transaction

The claimants were the tenants of the block of flats built in accordance with plans approved by the council. The foundations turned out to be too shallow and the tenants sued for the cost of making flats, on the basis that the council negligently approved inadequate plans and failed to inspect construction.

A duty of care was owned by the council and that their inspectors did not exercise proper care and skill then the council was liable even though the loss suffered was economic.

 A claim was brought in negligence, claiming that Lennon has asked for a transfer, speaking to a person in the HR department, who suggested taking a couple of steps. One of the actions was to go on unpaid leave, which actually caused him to break the continuity of service, causing him to lose some of his medical benefits. It was established that the Commissioner had assumed responsibility for the transfer, and knew that he would follow the advice of the HR department. The Court of Appeal said that even thought there was no contract of employment at the time between he two parties, there was a duty of care to advice L properly. 

Landmark case as it effects many people because: Mrs Smith was buying a house. There was a survey report carried out for the bank, but S didn’t carry out her own report and just relied on the one created by the bank. When the surveyor created his and the banks report they knew that S would rely on this report. He fails to notice that there was a damage to some of the foundation which caused the chimney to collapse. The HoL wanted to protect the average person, saying that it was reasonable for her to rely on the report provided by the bank. 

In this case you had a family friend who agreed to help the claimant buy a second hand car. The girl said that she relies on him and his statement that she didn’t need to have the car seen by a mechanic. This car turned out to be road unworthy. The court said that there was no duty of care here, and it would be undesirable to find one. He was giving gratuitous advice, in a social environment. 

Spring was employed by the defendants, but was dismissed and then tried to seek to employment with the competitors. He didn’t secure a job because he received a bad review from his previous employer. They gave misleading facts about the reason for his dismissal. The court said that the defendant knew that the letter would be relied upon, and that there would be a duty.

 Where a defendant voluntarily assumes responsibility for the economic interests of a pursuer and where they know or ought to know that their skill or expertise will be relied upon by that pursuer, a duty of care will arise.

An operator of a website can owe a duty of care in tort to the website’s visitors. Here, the Patchetts were looking for a contractor to build a swimming pool in their home. They came across the defendants website, which is an organisation which covers the majority of UKs swimming pool installers. Using this website the family obtained contact details for three companies, and use one of them to come and install a swimming pool. That company was in serious financial difficulties, which caused them to start and then not finish the pool, forcing the family to get a different contractor, losing 44,000 pounds. They brought a case against the website, saying that the statements of the member companies were invalid. The website had the information, but didn’t have any disclaimers. It was said that the website should’ve checked for the companies financial status. It was held that it would not be fair to hold the company liable and suggest that a duty was owned, but they did say that there is a need to ensure that the information put in the public domain is accurate. On these facts the operator of the website can in principle owe a duty of care, but if they ask you to do more, it is unlikely that a duty of care will be established. If they have asked more questions about the company then they would have found out about their financial troubles.