Pure Economic Loss CASES
In English law, pure economic loss refers to financial losses suffered by a claimant that do not arise from any physical injury to a person or damage to property, often restricting recoverability in negligence claims.
Definition and Principles
Pure economic loss involves financial harm unrelated to physical injury or property damage. Courts are typically cautious about permitting claims to avoid extensive liability and unpredictability.
Common Scenarios
- Negligent Misstatement: Financial losses resulting from reliance on incorrect professional advice.
- Loss of Business Profits: Economic losses following negligent acts without physical damage.
Legal Position
Generally, pure economic loss is not recoverable unless specific exceptions apply, notably where a special relationship or duty of care exists (e.g., professional advice contexts).
Practical Importance
Understanding pure economic loss ensures businesses and professionals recognise potential liability limits and encourages clear communication and due diligence.
Home » Pure Economic Loss
Mr Barratt instructed his solicitors to revise his will to benefit his reconciled daughters, but they negligently delayed and he died before execution. The daughters received nothing under the old will. The House of Lords held, by majority, that the solicitors owed them a tortious duty of care. Facts Mr...
Roadworks contractors negligently damaged an electricity cable supplying Spartan Steel’s factory, causing physical damage to a melt in an arc furnace and loss of production profits during a 14½ hour outage. The Court of Appeal limited recovery to physical damage and directly consequential profit, excluding pure economic loss. Facts Spartan...
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...
Mr Murphy purchased a house built on a defective concrete raft foundation which had been approved by the council's independent consulting engineers. When cracks appeared and the house became dangerous, he sold it at a loss. The House of Lords departed from Anns v Merton, holding that local authorities owe...
Junior Books engaged Veitchi as nominated sub-contractors to lay flooring in their factory. The floor proved defective due to poor workmanship, requiring replacement. Despite no contractual relationship between the parties, the House of Lords held Veitchi liable in tort for pure economic loss, given the exceptional proximity between the parties....