economic loss CASES
In English law, economic loss refers to financial loss suffered by a claimant as a result of another’s wrongdoing. It is a significant concept
in negligence because the law draws a clear distinction between economic loss that flows from physical damage and pure economic loss, which arises independently of any injury to persons or property.
Definition and principles
Economic loss encompasses monetary losses such as lost profits, repair costs, wasted expenditure, and loss of business opportunity. Where suchloss results from physical injury to a person or damage to property, it is generally recoverable as consequential loss.
By contrast, where the claimant suffers financial loss alone, without accompanying physical damage, the loss is classified as pure economic
loss. The law of negligence is traditionally reluctant to allow recovery for such loss due to concerns about indeterminate liability and
disproportionate exposure to claims.
Common examples
Consequential economic loss includes loss of earnings following personal injury or loss of profits caused by damage to business premises.
Pure economic loss commonly arises where a claimant relies on negligent advice, information, or services, or where commercial interests are harmed without any physical interference.
Legal position
Economic loss is recoverable in negligence where it is consequential upon physical damage and the usual elements of duty, breach, causation, and remoteness are satisfied. Recovery for pure economic loss is generally excluded unless an established exception applies, most notably where a duty of care arises from an assumption of responsibility.
Practical importance
The distinction between consequential and pure economic loss is central to assessing liability in professional negligence, construction,
commercial disputes, and claims against public authorities. Understanding where a loss falls helps determine whether a negligence claim is viable and which legal principles apply.
See also: Pure economic loss; Negligent misstatement; Assumption of responsibility; Professional negligence; Remoteness of damage; Negligence.
Home » economic loss
Barratt obtained planning permission for a housing development and had a statutory right under section 106 Water Industry Act 1991 to connect its drains to Welsh Water’s sewer. Welsh Water blocked the connection with concrete. The Court of Appeal held Barratt could not recover damages in nuisance, trespass or negligence...
Lenders suffered losses after advancing money on the strength of negligent property valuations and subsequent market falls. The House of Lords held valuers liable only for losses attributable to the overvaluation itself, not for all losses from the lending transaction, establishing the ‘information not advice’ and SAAMCO cap principles on...
Mrs Parkinson’s sterilisation was negligently performed, leading to the birth of her disabled son Scott. The Court of Appeal held she could recover the additional costs of caring for his disabilities, but not the ordinary costs of his upbringing, distinguishing McFarlane on disabled children. Facts The defendant NHS Trust managed...
Following a negligently performed vasectomy and incorrect advice that Mr McFarlane was sterile, Mrs McFarlane became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy fifth child. The House of Lords held that while the mother could recover damages for pain and suffering from pregnancy and childbirth, neither parent could recover the...
A cargo ship developed hull cracks during a voyage. A classification society surveyor initially recommended permanent repairs but reversed this decision, allowing the vessel to sail with temporary repairs. The ship sank, losing all cargo. Cargo owners sued the classification society in negligence. The House of Lords held no duty...
Police officers sued the Commissioner alleging breach of duty in defending civil proceedings brought against her based on their alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court held that no duty of care was owed to officers to conduct litigation so as to protect their economic or reputational interests, as imposing such a...
A bungee jumping operator sued an HSE inspector for negligent advice given to local councils, which led to improvement and prohibition notices being served against his business. The Court of Appeal held that no duty of care was owed by inspectors to business owners for economic loss caused by enforcement...
Lessees of a flat discovered defective plaster caused by negligent sub-contractors employed by the main building contractor. The House of Lords held that the cost of repairing defective work which had not caused personal injury or damage to other property was pure economic loss and not recoverable in tort against...
Customs & Excise obtained freezing injunctions against two companies with accounts at Barclays Bank. After the bank was notified of the orders, it negligently permitted substantial fund transfers from both accounts. The court held that the bank owed no duty of care to the claimants merely by receiving notice of...
Loss adjusters sued an insurance company for malicious prosecution after fraud allegations were dropped just before trial. The Privy Council held 3-2 that the tort of malicious prosecution extends to civil proceedings, overturning previous limitations. This landmark decision restored historic common law principles allowing recovery for maliciously prosecuted civil claims....
Hedley Byrne, advertising agents, suffered financial loss after relying on negligent credit references given by Heller & Partners about a customer. The House of Lords established that a duty of care can arise for negligent misstatements where there is a 'special relationship' between parties, even without a contract, though the...
Caparo purchased shares in Fidelity relying on audited accounts prepared by Touche Ross. The accounts were allegedly negligent, overstating profits. Caparo sued the auditors claiming they owed a duty of care. The House of Lords held auditors owe no duty to individual shareholders for investment decisions or to potential investors,...