|
In Sutradhar (FC) v Natural Environment Research Council [2006] UKHL 33 the House of Lords had to determine the circumstances in which the maker of a negligent misstatement owed a duty of care to someone who suffered physical injury as a result of the misstatement. Their Lordships held that no duty of care was owed on the facts, a result with which it is hard to find fault, but the case is of moregeneral interest in two ways. First, it considers the relationship between misstatements and other forms of conduct causing physical injury to a claimant. Second, the case demonstrates the demise of"reasonable foreseeability" of damage as a determinant of the duty of care question. This is in contrast to the approach of the High Court of Australia, which has in recent times reinvigorated this part ofLord Atkin's iconic neighbour principle so that it now serves an important role in determining whether a duty of care is owed. |
|