header-logo header-logo

14 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Negligence

Cleightonhills v Bembridge Marine Ltd [2012] EWHC 3449 (TCC); [2012] All ER (D) 32 (Dec)

In considering whether a duty of care was owed, particularly in a construction context involving duties owed by parties who were only involved at all by reason of the contracts which they had entered into, the court needed to consider the contractual context in which such parties were involved in the first place. The court needed to consider what the party owing the duty to the other was contractually engaged to do. It was always necessary to consider what the scope of a tortious duty of care was. That scope was primarily determinable by reference to what the party owing the duty was at least broadly employed to do or actually did. It did not follow that, simply because a party was in breach of the contract pursuant to which it was involved in the project in question, it would be in breach of a duty of care owed to someone who was not a party to that contract.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll