Negligent Misstatement CASES
In English law, negligent misstatement arises where a party carelessly provides inaccurate or misleading information or advice, in circumstances where they have assumed responsibility for its accuracy, and another party suffers financial loss through reasonable reliance.
Definition and principles
Negligent misstatement does not involve deliberate dishonesty. Liability arises from a failure to exercise reasonable care when giving information or advice, in situations where the law recognises a duty of care despite the loss being purely economic.
The doctrine developed to address the general rule that negligence does not usually allow recovery for pure economic loss, and is closely associated with the principle of assumption of responsibility.
Essential elements
- Duty of care: The defendant has assumed responsibility for the accuracy of the information or advice, and it was reasonable for the claimant to rely on it.
- Breach: The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or skill, resulting in inaccurate or misleading information or advice.
- Reliance and loss: The claimant relied on the statement and suffered financial loss as a result.
Practical applications
Negligent misstatement commonly arises in professional and commercial contexts, including financial advice, legal opinions, valuations, and references, where statements are relied upon in making economic decisions.
Importance
The concept plays an important role in allocating responsibility for careless statements that cause economic harm. It encourages accuracy in professional communications while recognising limits on liability, particularly where responsibility has not been assumed or reliance is unreasonable.
Home » Negligent Misstatement
A Bangladeshi villager alleged the British Geological Survey, part of NERC, negligently failed to test for arsenic and implied local tubewell water was safe, leading to his arsenic poisoning. The House of Lords held NERC owed no duty of care to Bangladesh’s population and upheld summary judgment. Facts The Natural...
Mr Spring, a former insurance representative, was denied new appointments after his ex-principals supplied highly damaging references. The House of Lords held by majority that those providing employment references owe the subject a duty of care in negligence and, possibly, in contract, reshaping protection for workers’ reputational and economic interests....
Mr and Mrs Patchett chose a swimming pool contractor from SPATA’s website, relying on statements that members were vetted and covered by a bond and warranty scheme. The contractor was only an affiliate member and became insolvent. The Court of Appeal held SPATA owed no duty of care for these...
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...
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,...