- Explained — Vadim Don Benyatov v Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd 2023-02-17
“…entifying the legally significant features of the situations”. That approach derives from the decision of the House of Lords in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, as explained in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2018] AC 736, which corrected some misunderstandings in the case-law about…”
- Approved — Seema Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors & Ors 2023-01-13
“…rd party by a lack of care in carrying out the relevant task. Nor is proximity sufficient. The incremental approach approved in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 required all these and any other relevant factors to be taken into account, including any relevant policy considerations. At [75] he said that the Supreme Cour…”
- Followed — HXA v Surrey County Council 2022-08-31
“…the courts need to go beyond those principles in order to decide whether a duty of care should be recognised. Following Caparo [Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605] the characteristic approach of the common law in such situations is to develop incrementally and by analogy with established authority. The drawing of an anal…”
- Cited — Spire Property Development LLP & Anor. v Withers LLP 2022-07-19
“…een assumed by the defendant to the claimant (see Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (No 1) [1995] 2 AC 145 at [181], endorsing Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 at 637). The primary focus must be on exchanges which cross the line between the solicitor and the claimant (see for example Williams v Natural Life Health Foo…”
- Considered — Lorna Armstead v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2022-04-28
“…ood Birmingham v Hoyer Group UK Limited [2011] QC 357. The judge considered issues of foreseeability and the tests for recovery of damage from Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. The judge set out substantial parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Network Rail Infrastructure v Conarken Group [2011] EWCA Civ. 644; [2012] 1 All …”
- Cited — Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP 2020-08-28
“…s affairs and to exercise their collective powers to reward or control or remove those to whom that conduct has been confided” (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (Caparo) at 630 per Lord Oliver).…”
- Cited — Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP 2020-08-28
“…The purpose is that expressed in the speeches in Caparo. Lord Bridge said ([1990] 2 AC 605 at 626):…”
- Applied — AAA & Ors v Unilever Plc & Anor 2018-07-04
“…KL. No duty of care was owed by either of those companies. This was because, applying the three part test for a duty of care in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, the judge held that the damage suffered by the appellants was not foreseeable by either UTKL or Unilever. Further, in relation to Unilever, the judge held tha…”
- Cited — P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP 2018-05-15
“…ether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty, both of which are derived from the decision of the House of Lords in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, the Vice-Chancellor accepted that the test of proximity was established in that the vendor’s solicitors must be taken to have known and intended that the purc…”
- Applied — Sumner v Colborne & Ors 2018-05-04
“…Applying the approach adopted in the Caparo case [Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605], there are many situations in which it has been clearly established that a duty of care is or is not owed: for example, by motorists to other road users, by m…”
- Applied — Frederick & Ors v Positive Solutions (Financial Services) Ltd 2018-03-13
“…In relation to the cross-appeal on duty of care, the Judge held that the Master had correctly applied the three stage test in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. The Judge concluded that the second and third stages were not satisfied: there was not sufficient proximity between the appellants and the respondent and it w…”
- Cited — Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc 2018-03-02
“…is-à-vis the claimant, or is to be treated by the law as having done so. The second is commonly known as the threefold test [in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605]: whether loss to the claimant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant did or failed to do; whether the relationship between the parties…”
- Cited — Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc 2018-03-02
“…is-à-vis the claimant, or is to be treated by the law as having done so. The second is commonly known as the threefold test [in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605]: whether loss to the claimant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant did or failed to do; whether the relationship between the parties…”
- Cited — Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor (Rev 1) 2018-02-14
“… group of claimants. The authorities indicate that assumption of responsibility and the fair, just and reasonable test expounded in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 tend to run together. However, on the claimants’ case, RDS has taken control of management of the operation and security of the pipeline and facilities, and he…”
- Followed — Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor (Rev 1) 2018-02-14
“…dler”) and Thompson v. The Renwick Group Plc [2014] EWCA Civ 635 (“Thompson”)in the context of the three-stage test set out in Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. This approach remains correct following this court’s decision in Vedanta (see paragraph 83 of the judgment recited by Simon LJ at paragraph 23 above).…”