good evening those who are able to join us tonight so we would like to focus our first part of our discussion on uh the thought of uh negligence before I take maybe one or two questions and I will close for the nights I presume that uh by now you've made very good progress with respect to your general revision following the general advice that I gave you that they should do uh audits of the sis examinable subjects then try to diagnose which of the subjects and which particular topics in the subjects uh maybe you have some deficiency and you need some more assistance so that is the best way to help yourself to hold yourself in Readiness to be able to respond to any question uh that may come under any of those sales subject areas so having said that as I indicated I want to revise with you the thought of negligence and there's a particular uh question which would uh exercise our mind as we do the revision of the negligence so we going to have a one question for example along the lines of a typical essay question on ingredients like this and they show it and then we continue so for example we have a the scope of Duty of care in negligence depends ultimately let me open it up so that we're going to see it yeah so we have a question like the scope of the detail of carry negligence depends automatically on the court assessment of the need to protect Society the carelessness of others discuss philosophers that you have an essay question like this uh yes I repeat it the scope of the duty of care in negligence depends ultimately and the course assessment of the need to protect Society from the carelessness of others scarce so if you have a question uh like this uh we have to remember that it's testing our knowledge on uh uh an asset of thought of negligence and that aspect is when will the law recognize a duty of care so that is very important and especially uh in novel situations those situations in which the courts have not previously concluded that a duty of care for example exists so that is the focus of the question and that provides the background for our provision us it will so first and famous we we need to for example uh explain or Define uh What uh negligences and uh the definition of negligence can properly be given by looking at the components Parts which a plaintiff must prove to establish negligence and so therefore we could explain uh it in this steps that a plaintiff can successfully maintain a nursing for negligence where first he can prove that he was owed a duty of Care by the defendants to that the defendant by his action or omission bridge that duty of care thirdly that as a result of the breach of the duty of care by the defendant the plaintiff suffered damages and finally at the damage which the plaintiff has suffered as a result of the breach of the digital of care is not too remote from the breach of the duty of care so this is the essence of the thought of negligence as a cause of action so let us keep that in mind but our Focus presently is on the duty of care how do you establish the relationship and when you can say that there are plenty the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care a duty to take proper care in order to avoid causing injury to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case there are uh two ways in which a duty of care may be established uh first the defendant and the plaintiff are within one of the established Duty situation that is said that there are certain situations in which the the courts have actually concluded that uh there exists if you like a duty of care when that situation for example uh exists so let us keep that in mind or secondly if the plaintiff and the defendants are outside the established duty of care situations are according to the principle developed by case law can we recognize that a duty of care for example exists so let's look at the first aspects uh recognizing a beauty of care in established uh Duty situation and these arise as a result of some sort of like a special relationship between the parties and we know the the neighbor principle for example and before the recognition of Leslie like the the neighbor principle uh in the logo and Stevenson by Lord Atkin uh we knew that Road uses owed a duty of care towards one another employer owed the detail of care towards the employee manufacturer according to the nugo and Stevenson hosts a duty of care to the consumer a doctor who is a duter of care to the patient a solicitor or lawyer owes a duty of care to the clients so these are if you like examples of established situations in which the course is that a duty of care for example exists now outside these categories in which the the law has already determined that editor of care exists between the parties in that situation there are other situations outside these established ones in which a duty of care will be determined on case-by-case basis as it were and this is where the neighbor principle are formulated by Lord Atkin in the logo at 17 in the 1932 becomes quite handy and when I mean all of us remember uh donogu and and Stevenson uh if you don't know anything at all in totally forgotten thought not the neighbor principle in dunago and world and Stevenson so as we recall uh Mrs donogu and friend visited the cafe it says uh had a bottle of ginger beer in containing an opaque glass meaning that you could not see through it and when uh film is glass uh the remains of a decomposed nail uh uh no came out and it could have found its way certainly into the bottle uh at the factory where the drink was uh manufactured so Mrs uh do not go as we know develop a health condition called the gastroenteritis and the Mata went to courts and then the courts needed to of course it was not easy to Simply say that message the no good being just a buyer of a common beer could see the the manufacturer remember she didn't buy from the manufacturer right she bought it from a retailer who had also taken delivery from uh if you like a wholesaler and a wholesaler might I was probably going to the factory to get it so in terms of uh going by established you know a contractual rules privity and all that it would have been quite uh difficult uh for Mrs uh donogu for that matter she decided to bring a nation against the manufacturer of the gender beer and uh until that there were very fixed situations as you have noticed in which the courts have recognized existence of Duty of care so the house of laws needed to decide whether a duty of care existed in the circumstances of Mrs the nogus case as a matter of law and eventually the UK House of laws then came to conclusion that the manufacturer of the ginger beer owed a beauty of care that the bottle did not contain foreign bodies which could cause uh the consumer as the Mrs beer uh personal home so therefore from donogue and Stevenson we got the narrow principle that I mean vulture of goose owes a beauty of care to the ultimate consumer so until the logo and Stevenson we didn't have such uh recognition of a detour of care between a manufacturer of good and the ultimate consumer of the good but what the case of the logo and Stevenson is celebrated for is not just the recognition of the existence of religion of care between the manufacturer and then the ultimate consumer as a message for example but more importantly don't agree and Stevenson established what is known as a neighbor principle and the neighborhood principle is a principle which determines whether the defendant owes a duty of care in any situation and that is why Lord Atkin made the famous victim that's you must take reasonable care to avoid Acts or missions which can reasonably which you can reasonably foresee will be likely to enjoy your neighbor who then in law is my neighbor the answer seems to the persons who are so closely entirely affected by my act that I thought reasonably to have them in my contemplation has been so affected when I'm directing my mind to the Arts or Mission which are called in question so those were the words of Lord Atkin which actually encapsulated what has become known as the the neighbor uh principle and the neighbor principle asks Lord Macmillan uh notice in the local case again Lord MacMillan was one of the laws in that case he would make the point that the neighbor principle which had British not be articulated by Lord Atkin was not supposed to be limited in this application that is to say that it could be extrapolated it could be extended to some other situation and for that matter Lord MacMillan bless us with another famous victim that the categories of negligence are never close for example if your Examiner wanted to be very simple in formulating a thought you know a question from thought for you yeah we just we could just put the the categories of navigations are never close Fair Lord Mac Miller and Stevenson critically comment on this that can be a question simple though it looks but that can be a good question enough now when uh Lo MacMillan made the point in the no good case that the categories of negligence are never close what he meant was that the courts can formulate new categories of negligence to reflect the current social View and make decisions based on conservation of public policy in other words Lord Mac Miller was saying that those situations in which a duty of care will be recognized as existing between parties or between the plaintiff and whoever is a defendant are not exhaustive are not exhaustive and based upon what Society is thinking about certain activities about certain matters and what public policy for example seems to be a very political point in time they may all play important role in calibrating or making a determination as whether you want to recognize a duty of care as existing in a particular situation between parties now the the good point to note is that almost 60 years after Lord Atkins beautiful formulation of the neighbor principle in the noble case in 1990 remember the logo and seventh was 1932 so in 1990 so barely UH 60 years after Lord that can uh uh never principal donogu we got a refinement of that principle in the case that we all know the case of caparo Industries against Dickman caparus Industries against the command and uh what happened in caparo's Industries against Dickman uh in that case as you remember as you remember because my presumption is that all of us have learned thoughts and we are just trying to refresh our memory some of you landed not too long ago Ireland thoughts at in somewhere in 1998 or 19. yeah 1998 or 99 so we are just revising what we've learned we're not learning this for the first time so that is the contest within which I am doing this kind of a discussion good so in caparo Industries against uh Dickman uh this was about the liability of an auditor for financial loss suffered by investors but that of course we know very well that case also set out three points and those are very crucial for us for our present uh discourse three points which a court must consider to establish whether a duty of care exists and that is why we are saying that caparu and Dickman was a refinement of the neighbor principle earlier articulated in the dunago and Stevenson so what are the three uh uh uh points which the court will need to pay attention to in trying to determine whether a duty of care exists fast the cuts will find out but that was a reasonable foresight of harm was the harm foreseeable secondly was there sufficient proximity of relationship as a relationship between the plaintiff and alleged thought Visa for this whole proximate was it so close thirdly is it fair and just is it fair just a reasonable to impose a duty in other words in the situation in which the court is trying to make a determination as whether a detour of care should be considered as existing between the plaintiff and the alleged Visa that is a defendant have a regard to all the circumstances a configuration of facts and all that will the court find it fair well the call finally just a reasonable to impose a duty so that is what uh then actually came to add to the neighbor principle so uh you notice that the requirement of the sufficient proximity between the parties was properly clarified in the caparu and Dickman so let us keep that in mind but of course let us also appreciate that caparo and Dickman did not really come to uh you know sort of take anything away from Stevenson it only came to clarify so maybe if I may draw analogy that's us in law of contracts the case of uh Hadley brand no not Headley brand the case of uh what is that this is a this is a general damages principle which was clarifying no but I has I hardly Ambassador yeah that's what I mean the case of a hardly Ambassador in contract right which profans the principle of remoteness of Damages uh as far as the breach of hundred is concerned you know it was clarified in cases like Victoria Industries again I know Victorian women are Industries against a new man and in the same when you notice that the Lord just asking Saul to clarify what Baron Anderson did in the Hadley and in the uh in the basindale case that is what we're also seeing in thought of negligence here what's caparo and big man is doing to do not go and work and Stevenson so for example in Donald Stevenson we are told that in trying to find out whether a digital care is among other things that we have to avoid Acts or missions which you can reasonably foresee will be likely to enjoy your neighbor so in caparo and bigman you will just simplify that and see that before we can recognize whether there was a duty of care was there a resemble for a site of harm in other words having regard to the situation in which the defendant stood to the plaintiff could we say that there was a reasonable foresight of ham on the part of let's say the defendant as a tough Visa towards the plaintiff again in donogue and Stevenson we are told for example by Lord Atkin that persons who are so personally affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation I've been so affected when I'm directing my mind to the actual Mission which are called in question the same points will be made but in a very simple way will say that was there sufficient proximity of what relationship so instead of Lord you know Atkin using all those plenty words you just get like the two or three words and then the same idea is captured that among other things before we can say that there was a duty of care as between the two parties can we say that they stood in sufficient proximity of relationship towards one another so maybe the addition which was not in the logo and 17 is the third requirement is it fair is it just and reasonable to impose a duty so that is what has been added to that is what has been added to the the neighbor principle so let us keep that in mind anytime you are doing a discussion of a duty of care in any question don't forget the third requirements added by capital and Dickman that is it fair is it just a reasonable to impose a Duty or vote okay so let us keep that in mind any question so far before I continue okay we'll continue if you don't understand just ask a question okay sir good evening oh good morning yes good yeah yeah so okay so so good next okay yeah yeah so the understanding is that the courts are willing to expand the the the um the scope of the detail of care on the Under the Clock of of public policy and that's what you're saying sir yes uh public policy and of course the public policy is contextual contextual in the sense that uh within the language of caparo uh is it fair is it just is it reasonable so maybe like if there's let's say a particular uh situation let me give you uh I mean that's maybe like a situation in which for example no one has litigated it before and for that matter uh the code has not actually applied it mind to it to come to conclusion as whether a duty of care for example exists or does not exist the cause let me let's say that let's suppose that you have a students writing uh waec exams right uh you know student writing waec exams or even let's use the let's say the law school entrance of nature you are doing you're writing that and people rights and let's assume just for the sake of illustration they don't you know pass as is expected and all that and okay you decide to seal the particular uh uh universities where you go to your Bachelor of law degrees from which is a requirement for setting the laws going to examination uh saying that uh they were negligent in training you instructing you that is why you are not able to pass uh the questions and so on which will get in the entrance examination so a situation like that let's assume that no such case has ever gone to court right for a determination to be made as whether a duty of care for example exists between uh let's say the University in which the student did their LLB from and then the student assuming a matter like that has ever been determined and the court has to actually uh make a determination it will be guided by all the things that we are talking about and apart from the reasonable foresight of harm as between the parties so for example uh assuming the failure of the exams is the harm that they are talking about on the path of let's say the University where you did your LLB can we say that it was uh the you know there was a reasonable foresight could they have foreseen in advance reasonably that uh you you feel if for example they didn't exercise Pro pocket in training and instructing you and not only that that you come to the the sufficient proximate relationship do we have sufficient personal relationship do you have that closeness so that the university must certainly have a reasonable foresight of harm based upon the sufficient relationship between the university and let's say like the students and then you come to the third you know layer which kapparu has brought to the table in this situation in terms of public policy is it fair is it just is it reasonable to impose a duty on University which actually thoughts or trained students before going to sit for the entrance of nation so that is how the determination uh is done don't leave that assist you yes please a lot a lot sir a lot okay many thanks all right yeah so uh having known the capario test what we need to uh you know add uh is that uh no there'll be a lot of restrictions and limitations on the caparottis and these restrictions and limitations have been developed in relation to certain situations where capacities are needed to be tested and for that matter neither some tweaking or modification so for example situation like omissions failing to act if someone for example failed to act and for that matter you want to ground a course of us in the negligence on that how does caparo test for example play out but we take as of third parties when can act of third parties for example become a basis for recognizing existence of a duty of care and then when it comes let's say misstatements if people make Mist statements that is a false or wrong statements inaccurate statements when can they give rise to a course of action in negligence and how does the caparu test uh you know comes in and an issues like the economic loss or what do you call it the financial loss and then never shock or what they call the psychiatric ham as well as the uh maybe you have a special plaintiffs and a special defendants how does caparu comes in in all this so uh for example let's take the scenario of omissions of failing to act where there was Omission or failure to act can we say that a D2 of care existed and for that matter the person ought not to have omitted or not to have failed to act so going by kaparu the question will be was there reasonable for sight of harm when the person failed omitted to act and two was there sufficient proximity of relationship if the answer to 1 and 2 are no then we go to the next we find out was it fair was it just a reasonable to impose a duty of care in the situation in which the person omitted the food to act now this is how what happens if you have yes yes yes to all the three questions was there reasonable for sight of harm was there sufficient possibility of relationship was it fair just a reasonable to impose a duty if you can answer all these questions in the affirmative you can say yes yes to them then you can conclude that the Omission or the failure to act uh there was a duty of care in that situation so there was a duty of care not to Omit to act not to fail to act on the other hand if the answer to the three questions are no then there's no liability in negligence you cannot bring a successful Russian in negligence because no duty of care can properly be what can properly be made out and we all remember that uh in the old case of a Smith against uh Littlewoods for example an 1980s event decision the house of lost uh speaking through Lord golf made the point that the common law does not impose liability for what are called Pure omissions in other words if someone failed to act the common law does not impose liability your failure to act will not let you be fixed with liability for maybe like the breach of Duty of the as it were so let us keep that in mind and for that matter if we want to recognize a duty of care in a situation like that we will be doing something like trying to recognize the YouTube created the whole world to take positive action to prevent harm in other words we'll be posing unrealistic burden and so if you are using caparo language we say that it will not be fair it will not be just a reasonable to impose such a general duty how can you impose a general duty that if you omitted to act and somebody was ham or somebody was endangered then uh you are negligent that is too broad that is too broad and you remember the rescue principle if someone is imperative someone is in danger the law does not impose any obligation on you to do anything and for that matter your failure to intervene to rescue a person in danger will not make reliable in negligence for not doing anything positively so your failure to intervene cannot let to become liable for a course of action in negligence for that matter if you as we know uh know from our top class that if you see someone a stranger or a neighbor if you see a stranger uh face down in the pond and it's running the Lord does not impose obligation on you to prevent him from drowning that's why the fact that in your conscience as a moral being you may feel so obligated to intervene but the law does not impose any such obligation so let us keep that in mind but of course you know that there are exception to uh the principle that your failure to do positive Acts or not let you be liable for negligence deception is where you have special relationship so where you have a special relationship uh between the parties then by reason of the special relationship if you fail to act if you're omitted to act and harm occur to the person to whom or her that you have that special relationship that would let you be liable for negligent action let me give example as we know from the case law remember uh the case of a home office against a Dorset Yacht Company Limited in case all of you know already home office against the Dorset uh your Company Limited the courts for example pointed out that between prison officers and prisoners it's a special relationship and for that matter if the prison officers fail to act and harm his occasion to the prisoners their failure to act could let them be liable for a nursing in what in negligence as it were and again between employee and employer between employee employee has also be recognized that the employer owes a duty of care to the employee and vice versa asset way then when it comes to occupier liability right between occupier and visitor between occupy a visitor you know that especially for you know invitees let's see if we invite this and all that the occupier certainly who owe a duty of care and with that matter if people come to your premises there are hidden dangers and you keep quiet you omit to for example I disclose information about the hidden dangers or traps and the visitor to the uh the premises for example get injured you cannot Escape liability and negligence and again between parent and child if you look at the case of a kamaticia County Council against Luis the court recognizes that between parent and a child is a special relationship meaning that the parents does not have the luxury of permitting or fulfilling to do positive Acts for the good or welfare of the child for that matter if you're a parent you don't provide food you don't provide care or you neglect to for example uh care for the children and something happened to them they are sick or something like that that could make you reliable for what for negligence so let us keep that in mind so maybe my advice is that if for example in the exams you have a problem uh question and in the program question someone failed to act right and as a result of the person feel lot where there was a loss or damage you should be careful to find out whether or not especially our relationship existed between you know the two parties and what is remember always remember is that whether it seems reasonable for the party in question to ask in other words to help you to determine whether special relationship existed you may also want to ask have a regard to the situation in question was it reasonable for the other party who for example failed to act and hence a harm or danger had the occasion to the other one was it reasonable for him to act instead of committing to act so those are some of the questions that you may want to for example uh ask when you need to you know deal with this aspect in a problem based question so let us uh keep that in mind what about uh third parties do you have a general duty of care who listen to us of third parties the answer is no the only time you have a general beauty of care you will listen to us of a third party is where there's a special relationship with that third party if there's a special relation between you and the adapted party then uh your failure to act or vice versa could give rise to uh negligence maybe let's uh look at the case of a Smith against a Little's organization Limited and 19873 of the House of Lord which is a good illustration of uh whether editor of care is owed Evolution to third parties now in the Smith uh against lettuce organization limited the defendants bought a cinema intending to demolish it and place it with supermarkets but the work was not completed and the cinema remained empty and unattended people were not patronizing it so some children deliberately started the fire in its which burned the cinema down and badly damaged and adjacent Cafe a billiard Saloon announced to a church like a chapel so the plaintiff suit on bases that their losses have been caused by the negligence of the defendants and what was the negligence of the defendant we are trying to point to uh the fact that this defendants having purchased the cinema and then they didn't finish work on it and it was virtually empty and no one for example uh was paying attention to it and that was why the place was free for the children to go and do their mischievous uh you know children acts of setting fire then the fire escalating engulfing neighboring properties so that is where the plaintiffs were coming from so when the case made is done eventually to the the house of loss the House of Lords took the view that uh the defendants had not known of the previous acts of vandalism that is by the in their Cinema involving fire and since the cinema had not otherwise presented an obvious fireworks then there was no duty to protect the clintus property by securing the cinema so the court was trying to say that if you look at the history of the cinema there was no evidence that uh there were as of vandalism or hooliganism around that uh you know neighborhood and so on and for that matter there was no uh you know obligation or there was no need for the owners of the cinema to have for example put in place uh additional uh no precaution in order to avoid what happened now the house of Lord uh made the point that the existence of a duty of care in such cases depended on all the circumstances of the case and on socially accepted standards or behavior in that case is in which a duty will exist we are likely to be read but the courts did underscore the point that the defendant could owe a duty in relation to us of third parties if the following special circumstances for example existed one there was special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to the defendant negligently created a source of danger and it was reasonably foreseeable that a third party would interfere and three the defendant Ida knew or was capable of knowing that a third party had created a danger or risk of danger and are failed to take reasonable steps to Abate it so if you apply this particular test uh to the facts of the Smith against the littles organization Limited uh the house of laws were of the view that uh no such special circumstances existed and for that matter same did not warrant recognition of a duty of care on the path of the onus and management of the cinema uh who listen to the acts of the children who started the fire which eventually escalated and engulfed their neighboring properties so let us keep that in mind now let's look at the misstatements uh misstatement can uh misstatements that is inaccurate statements also give rise to in negligence well for a very long time for a very long time uh the position of the law uh was that where statements were made however inaccurate or misleading the way that could not provide basis for a nation to recover Financial loss caused by Reliance on that statement if you remember the old case the very old case of a Candler against a crane a Christmas that point was made and over there uh investors who had made Investments uh by relying on negligently prepared accounts were held unable to recover the financial losses which they had incurred when they relied on the negligently prepared Financial accounts but you know that all this change in the they celebrate I mean the the celebrated case or the course of the bread the case of Hadley brand against a Heller in 1964. you all know that a case too well uh you've met it in a contract evonzo met it in thoughts in Hadley Brown against uh hella and partners as you very well remember uh the court recognized liability for negligent misstatement in other words the court said that in appropriate circumstances negligent misstatement can actually give rise to liability a quick reminder of what happened in Hillary brand case as you know the plaintiff was an advertising company which offered work by it was giving work by a small company called it's about Limited and they had no previous dealings so it wanted to show about the creditworthiness and for that matter he sought reference from the company's bank right that is a small companies Bank and the reference was prepared without proper checks being made into the current state of finances of this smaller company which was going to enjoy advertising on credit basis from the plaintiff so there are plenty the advertising company relied upon the bank's reference regarding this small company it was going to run aggregate for on credit basis and actually I ran a number of advert activities for decimala company eventually the company went into liquidation when it had actually not paid for the adverts which it had and which they had run for it on credit basis so uh the plaintiff sought to recover the the the losses the money that it had lost by a reason of the credit advertisement for this company which is now liquidated they saw to recovered that from the defendant ban which had provided the credit reference and they granted they are asking what they call the negligent statements now as you remember very well in Heavenly brand against the land partners the house of laws did come to the conclusion that there were circumstances in which a person could be liable for in thoughts for losses caused by a statement which he made if he did not take sufficient care to ensure that his statement was accurate or if he did not make a claim that he had taken uh new steps to ensure its accuracy now this was quite Monumental it was a landmark because until Hadley brand against alien partners that do two of care and for that matter negligence had very much be if you like limited I know to no other situations rather than where someone has made like a inaccurate statements you rely on the Indian accusations and you're able to bring the course of action against the person who was negligent in making that statement that was not known until the case of helbrand in 1962 64. so let us keep that in mind and had LeBron obviously opened a new era of torches liability but uh just as we saw in the case of liability for omissions before the court wants to recognize that liabilities emanating from negligent misstatement a special relationship must exist between the parties especially so what do you mean by the special relationship especially our relationship was it between the parties if one party for example exercises skill and judgment another part acts in Reliance of a skill and judgment so that is the first thing to look out for between the plaintiff claiming against the defendants can we say that the defendant for example uh hard or clean to have a particular skill and then you make a judgment and the other party that's just the plaintiff we just rely on that judgment so we've got to have LeBron against the land partners the bank certainly profess to have such a skill and then it was also quite clear that advertising company was going to rely upon the reference the financial a reference which the bank was making in respect of his customer AC power limited the second uh tender Court will have to find out is that the person making the statement must possess skill to relation to the particular statement that is made and she realized that the other party will act in Reliance upon the statement so before you can come to conclusion that there's a case for negligence statement you must find out the maker of the statement the sea actually have possessed particular skill particular expertise in relation to the statement which is making and you see a way that the statement that is making it will rely upon by the intended recipient as it were now the Third point the call to find out is that the party to whom the statement is made must have acted in reliance with that statement in circumstances where it was reasonable for him to rely upon the statement so that that the three tests are conjunctive in other words all the three must be satisfied before you can bring a successful cause of action on basis of the principle in LeBron against Ln partners for negligent misstatement you must show that they existed especially our relationship between the maker of the statement and you the recipient said that the maker of the statements actually had a certain skill and uh you were going to rely on a skill engagement and two that the maker of the the statement who has a special skill must have known or realized that you as a plaintiff will rely or rely or acts upon the special skill and their judgment which he exercises and finally that there must be evidence that it was uh reasonable for you as a recipient to rely upon that segment now as you know very well in Adel Brown against the living Partners there was a disclaimer right there was a disclaimer that the maker of the statement was not prepared to actually uh bear uh liability for Reliance upon it and for that reason uh they could escape a liability as it were but the court actually uh did make a point which was ultimately clarify in the well-known case of a caparu Industries against Dickman which you've already discussed in relation to existence of Duty of care so as you remember the story of caparo Industries against Dickman decided in 1990. caparo or the company it owned chess in another company let's say uh company F and the accounts of company F were audited by the defendants and published by them as well so the plaintiff which owned the sales in their company purchase for dashes in F company and ultimately took over have company remember your majors and acquisition from company law so they suffered substantial Financial loss so the plaintiffs you the defendant in negligence claiming that shares in F company which have been purchased by the plaintiff in Reliance on the defendant's audits and also argue that the financial position of F company have been misstated and was was misleading in particular that an apparent protest profits of 1.3 million pounds should have been shown as a loss of over 400 000 pounds and that are these accounts we correct c will not have bought further shares in F company so simply put the plaintiff for saying that all the shares we kept buying in the particular company which you audited their accounts prepare the accounts and all that we kept buying doses industrial knowledge that the accounts that you are prepared the accounts that you had audited or something that you could place faith in record rely on it to decide whether F company was a company doing well and for that matter if you took more shares in it you're not going to actually run at a loss as it were and you now that it is clear that the account was not properly prepared there are a lot of a serious mistakes errors here and there what it means is that we have based ourselves upon force or faulty information and the fourth of the fourth information is as a result of your failure to exercise care in preparing the accounts in auditing the accounts now when the Mata came to court the trial judge came to conclusion that the defendant that is the the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care either as a shareholder of f company or as an investor holding no shares so the matter I went on appeal and then the English called for appeal by two to three uh came to conclusion that a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff our shareholders but not as investors so the defendant also made the final appeal to the then UK House of loss and when the Mata came before the house of laws uh there are a lot the law loss came to conclusion allowing the appeal that is reversing the the decision and and come to conclusion that the defendant are not owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in respect of the purchase of abscess despite the fact that the Affairs of the company were known to be such as to render its acceptable to an attempted takeover now the house of laws in the caparo Dickman made the point that if you wanted to establish a claim that is a case in negligent misstatements especially with regards to the special relationship the plaintiff must prove that the defendant must have known that one the statement will be communicated to the plaintiff to the statement will be made specifically in connection with the particular transaction and three the plaintiff will be very likely to rely upon it in deciding whether or not to proceed with the action so these were the three foods tests which they're called propounded before you can actually hold the the maker of a segment that you rely upon which has resulted in loss you can make the person liable for uh negligence and for that matter to uh compensate too for the losses that you have cared so let us keep that uh in mind now maybe it's getting late so we will uh end here three questions and another time you continue and as those maybe tomorrow tomorrow uh we will continue and exhaust discussion of I thought of negligence and be confident that to be able to answer any question on thought of neglect and be it an essay or problem and probably you make time and look at the deformation as well so there if there are no questions then I will sign out now if you have questions yes sure yeah I heard you in your earlier submission I say or I give you a mention of of never shock of never shock and under negligence my question is would that not come and that the is it a Wilkinson um exactly if we are talking of never shock when it comes to negligence all right you know there's not require the psychiatric injury I remember the film mosque is in accord and chief constable the case of a McLaren and oblan remember those situation where for example there's let's say that a disaster in the stadium you're watching the TV you see somebody related to you the person is seriously injured and you look at it and for example you also break down right you get that psychiatric harm that never show so that is a kind of but we we discussed that so as you notice what we're doing is there are being systematic so we've just finished looking at the if you look at the general detail of care and then we have seen how capable Enigma has tweaked and we are trying to look at certain specific scenarios so you've looked at the negligent statement you know because the time is actually uh you know it's getting late we we have also gone to look at the psychiatric injury and then the point about the uh what you used to call it the never shock uh will come in so we come we come to that all right sir okay all right so thank you all right yeah so tomorrow uh I die in the afternoon or in the evening depending upon my availability we have we definitely have a class okay all right good night