In English law, assumption of responsibility arises when one party voluntarily undertakes a duty—often in tort—such that another reasonably relies on that undertaking, potentially giving rise to legal liability.
Definition and principles
Assumption of responsibility means voluntarily undertaking a duty or service that creates a legal obligation, especially evident in negligent misstatement and economic loss cases. It bridges tort and contract, operating where no contractual relationship exists but reliance on a representation creates a duty of care.
Historical development and key authorities
The notion was solidified in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1963), where the House of Lords recognised liability for pure economic loss resulting from negligent misstatement when the defendant assumed responsibility, and the claimant reasonably relied on it.
Subsequently, White v Jones (1995) extended the concept to professional negligence, finding that a solicitor assumed responsibility to disappointed beneficiaries by failing to act, even without a formal contractual relationship.
In NRAM v Steel and Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA, the Supreme Court emphasised that assumption of responsibility requires both reasonable reliance by the claimant and foreseeability of such reliance by the defendant.
Role of Beoco Ltd. v Alfa Laval Co Ltd (1993)
In Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd, Alfa Laval sold a used heat exchanger “as seen” but supplied service records during pre‑contractual negotiations. Beoco later suffered a boiler explosion. On appeal, the court considered whether Alfa Laval had assumed responsibility through those service records—but ultimately the claim failed, with the explosion attributed to Beoco’s own engineers for failing to test properly, breaking the chain of causation.
Requirements for establishing assumption of responsibility
Courts generally look for:
A voluntary undertaking or representation by the defendant.
Reasonable reliance by the claimant on that undertaking.
Foreseeability that such reliance would occur.
A duty of care arising from those elements.
Consequences and application
When established, assumption of responsibility imposes a duty of care in tort, making the defendant liable for harm caused by reliance. It plays a crucial role in areas like negligent misstatement, financial advice, and professional services.
Criticism and academic perspectives
Academic opinion is divided: some see assumption of responsibility as a meaningful legal principle; others regard it as vague or overlapping with contract or proximity-based negligence. Its conceptual boundaries in the tort-contract nexus remain contentious.
A solicitor was instructed to create a new will benefiting the testator's daughters but negligently delayed until the testator's death. The daughters, who received nothing, sued the solicitor. The House of Lords held the solicitor owed a duty of care to the intended beneficiaries. Facts Mr Barratt, having previously disinherited his daughters (the plaintiffs) after a family dispute, reconciled with them. On 17 July 1986, he instructed his solicitors (the defendants) to draft a new will to include legacies of £9,000 for each daughter. The solicitor handling the matter negligently failed to act on these instructions with due expedition. Numerous
Foster parents were assured they would not receive a known child abuser, but the council placed one who then sexually abused their own children. The parents suffered psychiatric injury and sued. The House of Lords held their claim was arguable. Facts The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs W, were experienced foster parents. They specifically informed the defendant, Essex County Council, that they were unwilling to foster any child known or suspected to be a sexual abuser. The council, needing to place a 15-year-old boy, G, assured the plaintiffs that there was no history of such behaviour. In reality, G was a
A Bangladeshi national sued a UK research council for his arsenic poisoning, arguing it had a duty to test for arsenic when surveying water in Bangladesh. The House of Lords held no duty of care existed as the survey's purpose was different. Facts The claimant, Mr Sutradhar, a citizen of Bangladesh, suffered from skin lesions caused by arsenic poisoning after drinking water from a well in his village. The defendant, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), is a UK-based public body. Its subsidiary, the British Geological Survey (BGS), conducted a hydrogeological survey of groundwater resources in Bangladesh, funded by the
A social worker, employed by a council but managed by an NHS Trust while working in an integrated team, was assaulted by a patient's relative. The Court of Appeal held the Trust owed her a direct duty of care as it had assumed responsibility for her safety. Facts The claimant, Mrs Selwood, was an experienced social worker and approved mental health professional employed by Durham County Council (the first defendant). She was seconded to the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust, the second defendant) and worked as part of an integrated multi-disciplinary Community Mental Health Team
Children suffered prolonged abuse from neighbours, a situation known to the local council. The Supreme Court held the council owed no common law duty of care to protect them, clarifying that exercising statutory child protection functions does not automatically create such a duty. Facts The claimants, GN and CN, were two children who, along with their mother, were housed by Poole Borough Council. From 2006, the family was subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment and anti-social behaviour by a neighbouring family. The council, through its social services department, was repeatedly made aware of these problems and their severely detrimental
Claimants hired a fraudulent swimming pool installer they found on the website of a trade association (SPATA). When they lost money, they sued SPATA for negligent misstatement. The court held SPATA owed no duty of care, as the website provided general information with disclaimers, not a specific representation upon which the claimants could justifiably rely. Facts The claimants, Mr and Mrs Patchett, wished to install a swimming pool at their home. They visited the website of the defendant, the Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association Ltd (SPATA), a trade body for the swimming pool industry. On the website, they found
The London Ambulance Service was sued for negligently delaying an ambulance for a patient having a severe asthma attack, causing further injury. The court held that once a 999 call is accepted, the ambulance service owes a duty of care to that specific individual. Facts The claimant, Caroline Kent, was pregnant and suffering from a serious asthma attack. Her general practitioner, Dr. Griffiths, attended her at home and, at 16:25, telephoned 999 to request an ambulance to take her to hospital. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) operator accepted the call and assured the doctor that an ambulance was “on its
An insurance adjuster, appointed by one insurer to assess a claim for a consortium of co-insurers, was sued for negligence by another insurer in the group. The Privy Council held that the adjuster could owe a duty of care to the other co-insurers. Facts Following damage caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 to a condominium complex in the Cayman Islands, a claim was made under a property insurance policy. The policy was underwritten by a consortium of insurers, including Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd (‘Sagicor’) and Cayman First Insurance Company Ltd (‘Cayman First’). Cayman First, acting as the lead insurer,
A casino used an agent to get a credit reference for a client, without disclosing its identity. The bank provided a negligent reference. The Court of Appeal held the bank owed no duty of care to the casino as an undisclosed principal. Facts Playboy Club London Ltd (‘the Club’) considered offering cheque cashing facilities to a new customer, Mr Hassan Barakat. To assess his creditworthiness, the Club instructed an associated company, Burlington Street Services Ltd, to obtain a banker’s reference. Burlington contacted Mr Barakat’s bank, Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro (‘BNL’), requesting information on his financial standing, without disclosing that it
Lloyd's Names sued their managing agents for negligent mismanagement. The agents had a contract with the Names. The House of Lords held that the agents also owed a concurrent duty of care in tort, establishing the principle of concurrent liability. Facts The appellants were underwriting members of Lloyd’s, known as ‘Names’. The respondents were underwriting agents who acted as managers for various syndicates of which the Names were members. The relationship between the Names and their agents was governed by an agency agreement, creating a contractual link. The Names suffered substantial financial losses and brought actions against the agents, alleging
