Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 25 of
25
with 100 items per page.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman abstract "Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence: harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's conduct (as established in Donoghue v Stevenson), the parties must be in a relationship of proximity, and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liabilityThe decision arose in the context of a negligent preparation of accounts for a company. Previous cases on negligent misstatements had fallen under the principle of Hedley Byrne v Heller. This stated that when a person makes a statement, he voluntary assumes responsibility to the person he makes it to (or those who were in his contemplation). If the statement was made negligently, then he will be liable for any loss which results. The question in Caparo was the scope of the assumption of responsibility, and what the limits of liability ought to be.On a preliminary issue as to whether a duty of care existed in the circumstances as alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was unsuccessful at first instance but was successful in the Court of Appeal in establishing a duty of care might exist in the circumstances. Sir Thomas Bingham MR held that as a small shareholder, Caparo was entitled to rely on the accounts. Had Caparo been a simple outside investor, with no stake in the company, it would have had no claim. But because the auditors' work is primarily intended to be for the benefit of the shareholders, and Caparo did in fact have a small stake when it saw the company accounts, its claim was good. This was overturned by the House of Lords, which unanimously held there was no duty of care.".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman wikiPageExternalLink 2.html.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman wikiPageID "2884989".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman wikiPageRevisionID "604897703".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman citations "[1990] UKHL 2, [1990] 2 AC 605".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman concurring "Lord Roskill, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver and Lord Jauncey".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman court House_of_Lords.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman dateDecided "1990-02-08".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman decisionBy "Lord Bridge".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman hasPhotoCollection Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman judges "*Lord Bridge of Harwich *Lord Roskill *Lord Ackner *Lord Oliver of Aylmerton *Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman keywords "negligencethree-fold testnegligent misstatement".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman name "Caparo Industries plc v Dickman".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman numberOfJudges "5".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman subject Category:1990_in_case_law.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman subject Category:1990_in_the_United_Kingdom.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman subject Category:English_tort_case_law.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman subject Category:House_of_Lords_cases.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman comment "Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test".".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman label "Caparo Industries plc v Dickman".
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman sameAs m.0892bt.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman sameAs Q5034519.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman sameAs Q5034519.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman wasDerivedFrom Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman?oldid=604897703.
- Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman isPrimaryTopicOf Caparo_Industries_plc_v_Dickman.