
Economic loss
Doctrine in Tort. 8 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 (8 February 1990)
United Kingdom · 1990
Principle established: A duty of care arises only if harm is foreseeable, there is proximity between parties, and imposing the duty is fair, just, and reasonable.
- Electrochrome Ltd v Welsh Plastics Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1968
Principle established: Economic loss from damage to another's property is not recoverable.
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1964
Principle established: A duty of care in making statements arises where there is a special relationship, reliance and an assumption of responsibility.
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] UKHL 4 (28 May 1963)
United Kingdom · 1963
Principle established: A duty of care exists for negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss where a special relationship and assumption of responsibility exist, unless effectively disclaimed.
- Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1983
Principle established: Pure economic loss may be recoverable where proximity is very close and there is reliance.
- Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No 2)
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1988
Principle established: Pure economic loss is generally not recoverable without close reliance.
- Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1973
Principle established: Economic loss consequential on physical damage is recoverable; pure economic loss is not.
- Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1966
Principle established: Pure economic loss caused by negligent acts is generally not recoverable.
