LEGT1711 q1 (1 Viewer)

[RideTheLightnin]

q1....for determining whether there is duty of care or not....do we refer to the the "unanimous House of Lords laid down a 3 stage test to decide the issue of duty in cases of pure economic loss"

1. is the injury or loss foreseeable?
2. is there relationship of proximity the parties?
3. is it fair, just and reasonable for duty to be imposed in respect of the particular damage?


this seems very relevant although it doesnt apply in australia......how do we determine if there is a duty of care? there is causation and proximity yes, but even looking at the esanda case im still bedazzled? or do we use the doc > standard of breach > causation > remoteness thing like in a physical loss?

 

[phrred]

salient features on p191 backed up by common law

 

[RideTheLightnin]

oh ok...but im not 100% sure why a duty of care is not in place...it is because S&S are covered in the CLA 50 standard care for professionals? or is it more so the salient features on page 181? quite confused because S&S were negligent for providing false financial info....and LGL were stupid not to check....so why does LGL get 100% of the blame?