Pure economic loss meaning

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—15 February 2024 In this issue: Road traffic accidents Clinical negligence Costs Court and the legal profession Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information New Q&As Road traffic accidents Pure economic loss and remoteness In Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court held that a bailee’s possessory interest in goods is sufficient to found a claim against a third party whose negligence damages those goods. The appeal succeeded: a car-hirer was entitled to sue the negligent third party in tort to recover the contractual daily loss-of-use sum owed to the vehicle owner (the bailor, hire company) arising from the damage. The court also issued succinct guidance on core principles governing negligence claims for harm to tangible property, and on the limits of remoteness. Further, the Supreme Court confirmed that once a claimant has shown that...

Seddon v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency [2019] EWCA Civ 14, [2019] All ER (D) 139 (Jan) What are the practical implications of the judgment? The Court of Appeal in Seddon v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency held that the agency owes no duty of care to would‑be buyers of registered historic vehicles, notwithstanding knowledge that a car is being marketed and that questions have been raised about its identity and age. Of broader significance, and useful to practitioners generally, is Hamblen LJ’s succinct restatement of the factors the courts regard as pertinent when deciding whether to recognise a duty of care in claims for pure economic loss, providing a guide to the circumstances in which such a duty may, in principle, be imposed. What was the background? The respondent is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Transport, tasked under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA 1994) with registering and licensing drivers and vehicles across the UK, and with collecting vehicle excise...

In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Transferring property Investigating title Residential property Commercial real estate finance Property development Environment, energy and buildings Property taxes Property in Wales Property in Scotland Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q&As Property Highlights 2025/2026 Key developments and horizon scanning BPF opposes upward-only rent review ban in English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill The British Property Federation (BPF) has voiced its opposition to provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would prohibit upward-only rent reviews in all new commercial tenancies. The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 8 December, with committee stage scheduled for 20 January 2026 (see Trackers). The BPF says the proposal arrived without consultation or an evidence base and does not resolve the cited issue of faltering high streets...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

Court of Appeal—professional negligence ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal in a claim against solicitors, holding that the loss of a chance head of damage was too remote. At first instance, the judge concluded that Lewis Silkin LLP had fallen below the required standard by not advising their client to include a jurisdiction provision in his employment agreement with a franchisee involved in the Indian Premier League’s Twenty20 competition. Because no jurisdiction clause appeared in the contract, when the client later issued proceedings against the franchisee over a severance entitlement, he faced jurisdictional challenges (ultimately dismissed) brought by the franchisee, which postponed his obtaining judgment for £10 million in severance. The client’s case was that, with proper advice on jurisdiction, the contract would have contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On that footing, he said, he would have secured judgment for the severance sum sooner (as there would have been no hold‑ups arising from jurisdiction objections) and...

The duty of care In Donoghue v Stevenson, a woman fell ill after drinking ginger beer bought by a friend that contained a dead snail. In a landmark decision, the House of Lords held that manufacturers owe consumers a duty to take reasonable care to avoid harm. This principle is not restricted to consumers of products; the broader rules of negligence apply, and a claimant must also establish that a breach of duty caused their damage. When considering whether a defendant exercised reasonable care, the court will examine the circumstances, including: the likelihood of injury occurring the seriousness of the injury whether the danger was concealed or obvious relevant safety standards the benefits of the product the cost of reducing or eliminating the risk The court balances these factors and determines what constitutes reasonable care in the specific context. As a general rule, there is no claim in negligence for pure economic loss; there must be personal...