One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd going into liquidation, and whether Adder is liable for Kevin, Pablo's financial loss, including physical injury to Pablo, this also includes whether Adder is also liable for Musko Plc's

Authors Avatar

Sadia Samed – Student Number (SAS535)

LA176 – Law of Tort II Coursework

Advise Adder on his liability, if any, to Kevin, Pablo, Musko Plc for their financial losses

One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd going into liquidation, and whether Adder is liable for Kevin, Pablo’s financial loss, including physical injury to Pablo, this also includes whether Adder is also liable for Musko Plc’s loss of profit for Pablo not performing at there theatre.

Let start of with Adders liability for Bust limited, where he mislead the company’s financial report in negligent, leaving the company in liquidation.  The Hedley Byrne case introduced the concept that a claimant could recover for economic loss; however the courts have always distinguished such an action for pure economic loss, arising out of negligence act.  The House of Lords held that no duty of care was accepted by Heller and none arose, so the claim failed, the Lordship stated obiter that in appropriate circumstances, there could be a duty of care to give careful advice, and that breach of that duty could give rise to liability for negligence, but the fact is the sole damage was economic loss did not, they said did not effect the question of liability, this proves that Adder may not be liable for Busted Ltd.

If we look at the legal principle laid out in Spartan Steel v Martin Co Ltd, the defendants negligently caused all three of the types of loss that resulted from the power cut and all three types of loss were easily foreseeable, the court only compensated for the two sorts of loss, but not for the third, in many cases this can be seen as allowing the defendant to get away with serious careless behaviour regardless loss caused by others.  If we look at another legal principle laid out in Mutual Life Assurance v Evatt, the Privity Council held that there was no duty of care, the defendants were in business providing investment information and could not be liable for such advice.  It was held Williams and Reid v Natural Life Health Food, the house of Lords rejected the view of the special relationship for the claimant and the company.

Join now!

Let us now look at Kevin’s case, if Adder is liable for his loss, if we look at the legal principle laid out in Howard Marine v Ogden which looks at the special relationship which Hedley Byrne had never really examined, so it has become an area of judicial making, it has been suggested that a business or professional relationship might in general give rise to the duty if the claimant is genuinely seeking professional advice, in Howard Marine v Ogden it was accepted that the relationship for the purposes of imposing duties.  However on a purely social relationship ...

This is a preview of the whole essay