Hedley Byrne v Heller: Difference between revisions

m
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The great case of {{cite|Hedley Byrne|Heller|1964|AC|465}}, known reverently to all students of the law as ''[[Hedley Byrne]]'' which established as long ago as 1964 the principle that one might be liable in {{tag|tort}} for [[negligent misstatement]], nothing more than confirming something that [[Lord Denning]] had dissentingly been grumbling about since 1951.
{{cn}}The great case of {{cite|Hedley Byrne|Heller|1964|AC|465}}, known reverently to all students of the law as ''[[Hedley Byrne]]'' which established as long ago as 1964 the principle that one might be liable in {{tag|tort}} for [[negligent misstatement]], nothing more than confirming something that [[Lord Denning]] had dissentingly been grumbling about since 1951.


Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the defendant was found ''not'' to have had a duty of care, since he had effectively disclaimed one. Lord Devlin found that there was a “general disclaimer of responsibility” which appeared to him to be conclusive. He agreed with Lord Reid and he stated (at p.533):-
Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the defendant was found ''not'' to have had a duty of care, since he had effectively disclaimed one. Lord Devlin found that there was a “general disclaimer of responsibility” which appeared to him to be conclusive. He agreed with Lord Reid and he stated (at p.533):-
Line 6: Line 6:


Similar ground recently gone over in the context of a [[disclaimer]] by the Irish Supreme Court in {{casenote|Walsh|Jones Lang Lasalle}}.
Similar ground recently gone over in the context of a [[disclaimer]] by the Irish Supreme Court in {{casenote|Walsh|Jones Lang Lasalle}}.
{{seealso}}
{{sa}}
*[[Negligent misstatement]]
*[[Negligent misstatement]]
*{{casenote|Walsh|Jones Lang Lasalle}}
*{{casenote|Walsh|Jones Lang Lasalle}}


{{google2|Hedley|Byrne}}
{{c|Case Note}}
{{c|Case Note}}