The Neighbourhood Principle

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

Duty of care is a requirement to exercise reasonable care, attention and caution to avoid negligence which would lead to the harm of other people.

The case Caparo Industries v Dickman is a leading case that identifies a test to determine whether or not an employer owes a duty of care within a negligence case. In this case Caparo Industries had taken over a company called Fidelity and they seud Dickman for negligence in the preparation of accounts. Sir Neil

There are two common factors that must exist before the law says a duty of care exists, which are

A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeable harm others. A definition from Wikipedia

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

Lord Dyson begins by referring to the judgment of Lord Diplock in the Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service, in 1985. In that case, Lord Diplock underlined the fact that the courts were not concerned with the question of whether the decision-maker reached the “correct” decision, but rather with the question of whether sensible decision-makers, properly directed in law and properly applying their minds to the matter, could have regarded the conclusion under review as a permissible one. This was a very restrictive approach with a high threshold to cross if a JR application was to be successful on the grounds of

‘R v Stone; R v Dobinson’ is significant as it addresses the point of ‘duty of care’ and the outcome was described as “highly controversial because of the low capabilities of the two accused” . Appellant Gwendoline Dobinson was treated differently to appellant John Edward Stone due to her gender. Dobinson was expected to care for Fanny due to women being the “primary care-givers in domestic relationships” , proving that “the rule on voluntary undertaking of responsibility potentially remains structurally gendered” . The case was dealt within the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal by Geoffrey lane LJ, Neild and Croom-Johnson JJ. The appeals against conviction were dismissed although the appeal by Stone against his sentence was allowed, altering his sentence. The decision was also influenced namely “whether in a case of manslaughter it is necessary to prove that the defendant was reckless as to whether the victim would suffer death of serious bodily harm” .

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.