INTRODUCTION
The scope of duty principle has had a torrid history ever since its creation by Lord Hoffmann in York Montague v South Australia Asset Management Corp. It has produced all sorts of difficulties which have had to be addressed by the Courts, and practitioners have not found it easy to apply in practice in many cases. But it was never going to go away. Not only is it a decision of the highest court, affirmed subsequently, but the core reasoning behind it is attractive: a professional who provides an ingredient of a commercial decision should not be liable for the whole loss, but only the loss which is properly referable to its duty and its breach. The latest consideration of it by the Supreme Court, with a seven-member tribunal, was in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton and the parallel clinical negligence case of Meadows v Khan. Those decisions are now three old, they have had a little time to bed down, and there have been a few cases following them which illuminate the law which they develop …
€ (Westlaw)
Hugh Evans, ‘The scope of duty and purpose’ (2024) 40(2) Professional Negligence 47-60.
Leave a Reply