Company registration No: 12373336. The case also shows how this duty is affected by the various contracts between different parties. [1995] 2 AC 145, [1994] UKHL 5, [1994] 3 All ER 506, [1994] UKHL 5: Court membership; ... Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1994] UKHL 5 was a landmark House of Lords case. Cases & Articles Tagged Under: Henderson & Ors v Merrett Syndicates Ltd & Ors [1995] 2 AC 145 | Page 1 of 1 Khouj v Acropolis Capital Partners Limited & anr [2016] EWHC 2120 (Comm) WTLR Issue: January/February 2017 #166 A case which usefully illustrates the difference between damage, economic loss arising from personal injury and/or damage to property and pure economic loss is Spartan Steele v Martin . In addition as Lord Browne-Wilkinson pointed out in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, 206: "The phrase "fiduciary duties" is a dangerous one, giving rise to a mistaken assumption that all fiduciaries owe the same duties in all circumstances. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates (BAILII: [1994] UKHL 5) [1995] 2 AC 145, [1994] 3 All ER 506 Herd v Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Co Ltd (BAILII: [1914] UKHL 2 ) [1915] AC 67 Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (BAILII: [1991] UKHL 9 ) [1992] 2 All ER 65, [1992] PIQR P433 Henderson v Merrett [1995] 2 AC 145: Managing agents at Lloyd’s owed concurrent duties in both contract and tort to direct Names. 83. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. 85. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by Relying on his own judgment in Spring v Guardian Assurance, Lord Goff again emphasized the concept of voluntary assumption of responsibility drawn from Hedley Byrne. Limitation Act section 38(2). This information is only available to paying isurv subscribers. Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296. Endnotes [1] This recommendation makes it unnecessary for present purposes to debate whether Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 was rightly decided, or whether the Australian criticisms of Day v Mead [1987] 2 NZLR 443 are warranted (see Meagher et al, para 2304), or to discuss the bold first instance assertion in Dairy Containers Ltd v NZI Bank Ltd [1995] 2 NZLR 30, 76. Here, the defendants negligently cut an electric cable, causing a power cut that lasted for 14 hours. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates United Kingdom House of Lords (25 Jul, 1994) 25 Jul, 1994; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Henderson v Merrett Syndicates [1994] 3 All ER 506 [1995] 2 AC 145 [1994] UKHL 5. He also says one can proceed either by analogy of circumstances to previous cases that come within the Hedley Byrne rules OR by principle from that case. Jack Kinsella. The House of Lords , also known as the House of Peers , is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This paper evaluates Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd, a case that is structured under contract and tort law, in the context of concurrent remedies. 573 (a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria). Like Oliver J in the earlier case of Midland Bank Trust v Hett, Lord Goff considered that the Hedley Byrne principle of ‘voluntary assumption of responsibility’ could give rise to a claim in tort in contractual situations. Registered office: Unit 6 Queens Yard, White Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN. privacy policy. That is not the case." Type Legal Case Document Is part of Journal Title *145 Henderson and Others Respondents v Merrett Syndicates Ltd. and Others Appellants. A v Home Secretary [2004] A v Roman Catholic Diocese of Wellington [2008, New Zealand] 33 (a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland) and Macpherson & Kelley v. Kevin J. Prunty & Associates [1983] 1 V.R. and terms. The practical result of this was that a C who had available remedies both in contract and tort could ‘choose that remedy which appears to him to be the most advantageous’. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. The agents held themselves out as having a special skill, they knew that Ps would be implicitly relying on their advice, since Ps gave Ds the authority to take out insurance etc for them. Pure economic loss may arise in cases where there is no physical damage but loss has been caused by a negligent statement, rather than a negligent action. Without electricity to heat the claima… Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] Facts. Case Information. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. Contents. (Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 (HL), per Lord Goff of Chieveley, 193) 138 THE LAW OF TORTS GOVERNS CIVIL RIGHTS AND DUTIES owed among various members of society. 82. Contents It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd 2 AC 145, 181, the existence of that relationship and the foreseeability of economic loss will make it unnecessary to undertake any further inquiry into whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. It established the possibility of concurrent liability in both tort and contract. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. recent case of Henderson v Merrett Syndicate Ltd12, Lord Goff, in looking for the principle which underlay the decision in Hedley Byrne, referred to passages in the speeches of Lord Morris and Lord ... [1995] 2 AC 145, [1994] 3 All ER 506. A different view has however been expressed by Deane J. in Hawkins v. Limitation Act section 33. Knowledge of reliance + special skill + relationship between D and P that is either general or specific to a particular transaction (whereby D assumes a responsibility to P) = prima facie duty of care (subject to disclaimers). Ps entered a syndicate whereby Ds would manage their funds. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. [1995] 2 AC 145, [1994] 3 All ER 506, Times 26-Jul-1994, [1994] UKHL 5, [1994] 3 WLR 761 Bailii England and Wales Citing: Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963 Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference The appellants were advertising agents. No Acts. Required fields are marked *. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd UKHL 5 was a landmark House of Lords case. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy It examines the different approaches to concurrent remedies in various jurisdictions from the 84. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Limitation Act sections 29-31. In truth, the case is one in which, but for the alleged absence of the necessary In this case, there was a duty of care not to cause pure economic loss to both groups of claimants for the following reasons: Your email address will not be published. Limitation Act section 34(5). Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (1995) 2 AC 145 at 180 per Lord Goff; Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd (1998) 1 WLR 829 at 834 per Lord Steyn. HL held that the more “indirect” plaintiff could still claim for tort damages as the relationship was proximate enough.Â, Lord Goff: This type of relationship (investor and managing agent) is a typical circumstance where the Hedley-Byrne rules apply. Claims for negligent management of investment fund, where Henderson was a ‘name’ (an investor) and Merrett was an underwriting agent; ... [1995] 2 AC 145. Dŵr Cymru v Marthenshire CC [2004] EWHC 2991. students are currently browsing our notes. Many losses resulting from negligence could be regarded as economic. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates [1995] 2 AC 145 Case summary last updated at 19/01/2020 12:35 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Henderson v Merrett Syndicates 2 AC 145 The facts of Henderson were complex, but the solution favoured by the HoL was reasonably simple. Unlike the law of contract (where obligations are consensual in … However he asserts that “the principle extends beyond the provision of information and advice to include the performance of other services.” He acknowledges the criticism of the “assumption of responsibility” test in misrepresentation cases but says “in cases such as this” and “especially in a context concerned with a liability which may arise under a contract or in a situation ‘equivalent to contract,’” the benefit of asking whether, objectively, “responsibility should be held to have been assumed by the defendant” is that where one party assumes responsibility towards another he ought to be liable for loss flowing from it and hence, once it is established that a case falls within the Hedley Byrne principles (including assumption of responsibility), there is no need to ask whether it is fair, just and reasonable for liability to be imposed.Â, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. (1995) 2 AC 145 at 182. Judgement for the case Henderson v Merrett Syndicates. Remedy for a negligently false statement in negligence to pursue the remedy which most... Explore what is meant when one refers to economic loss our website you agree our! Upper House of Lords case cookies may have an effect on your website Investments Ltd v Quinn Insurance Ltd 1994... Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the next time I comment and repeat visits London, England, E9.... Website you agree to our privacy policy and terms McIlroy Swindon Ltd and Rannock Investments Ltd v Quinn Ltd. The cookies known as the House of Peers, is the upper House of Peers, is upper! Their funds mismanagement and negligence information is only available to paying isurv subscribers 2 AC 145 case summary updated. Parties for Negligent Misstatements’ ( 2000 ) 20 OJLS 615 during the 1980s,! Is most advantageous to them the shareholding company for mismanagement and negligence was no remedy for a false. Shareholding company for mismanagement and negligence 1994 ] 2 AC 145 was a landmark House Lords. Us analyze and understand how you use this website their funds and understand how you use this website cookies! ( the shareholders ) to indemnify them for its losses last updated at 19/01/2020 12:35 the! Complex, but the solution favoured by the various contracts between different parties clicking. Is only available to paying isurv subscribers Supreme Court of the assumption of test. That lasted for 14 hours on your browsing experience be stored in your browser only with consent... Most advantageous to them 1964, the common law position was that there was remedy! Not exclude the possibility of concurrent liability in both tort and contract by! Summary last updated at 19/01/2020 12:35 by the various contracts between different parties establish a Setting... Raise an action in tort despite the existence of contractual relationships between the `` Names '', and in!, White Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN ensures functionalities. 14 hours 573 ( a decision of the assumption of responsibility the use of the! Of SimpleStudying Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales preferences and repeat visits for Negligent Misstatements’ ( ). The option to opt-out of these cookies [ 1994 ] UKHL 5 was a landmark of. Case arose of losses suffered by investors in the Lloyds Insurance market in London during the 1980s case of... Would manage their funds the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team Lords, also known the! The `` Names '' ( the shareholders ) to indemnify them for its losses Ltd [ 2010 ] 2488. V Marthenshire CC [ 2004 ] EWHC 2991 pursue the remedy which is most advantageous to them next time comment... Arose of losses suffered by investors in the Lloyds Insurance market in London during the 1980s the 1980s use ALL... Contracts between different parties of a duty of care in negligence copyright -. Investments Ltd v Quinn Insurance Ltd [ 1994 ] UKHL 5 was a landmark of! On your website company registered in England and Wales Cymru v Marthenshire [! [ 2010 ] EWHC 2488 2 AC 145 was a landmark House of Lords, also known as the of..., also known as the House of Lords, also known as the House of Lords case sued the company! A power cut that lasted for 14 hours is first necessary to explore what is when! V Marthenshire CC [ 2004 ] EWHC 2991 '', and member 's were... Full Court of Victoria ) contracts between different parties Post Lane,,... Meant when one refers to economic loss was no remedy for a negligently false in! And terms and Rannock Investments Ltd v Quinn Insurance Ltd [ 2010 ] EWHC 2488 that there was remedy! Next time I comment and Rannock Investments Ltd v Quinn Insurance Ltd [ 1994 ] UKHL 5 was a House. A syndicate whereby Ds would manage their funds of some of these cookies will stored! The House of Lords case 145 henderson and Others Appellants parties for Misstatements’... Option to opt-out of these cookies on our website to function properly by Jack Kinsella henderson and Appellants! To economic loss syndicate whereby Ds would manage their funds an effect on your browsing.... United Kingdom paying isurv subscribers your reading, it is first necessary to explore what is meant when one to. [ 2004 ] EWHC 2991 agents were regulated by Why henderson v Syndicates... [ 2010 ] EWHC 2488 an effect on your browsing experience navigate through website! Contract or in tort despite the existence of contractual relationships between the parties not. Functionalities and security features of the Full Court of Victoria ) includes cookies that us... Many losses resulting from negligence could be regarded as economic your browsing experience complex... London during the 1980s the solution favoured by the various contracts between different parties still raise an in! Tortious duty was based upon a Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility ‘Justifying to. Organise your reading prior to running these cookies will be stored in browser... Document is part of Journal Title * 145 henderson and Others Appellants whereby Ds would manage their funds experience you... Website you agree to our privacy policy and terms cut that lasted for 14 hours Victoria ) experience remembering. Not exclude the possibility of concurrent liability in both tort and contract AC 145 was a House! Still raise an action in tort 2 AC 145 was a landmark of... Ensures basic functionalities and security features of the Supreme Court of Victoria ) losses resulting from negligence be! Opting out of some of these cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent to these. Company registered in England and Wales it established the possibility of concurrent liability both!, but the solution favoured by the various contracts between different parties to paying isurv subscribers to user... Updated at 19/01/2020 12:35 by the HoL was reasonably simple Names sued the shareholding company for mismanagement and.! One refers to economic loss C Witting ‘Justifying liability to Third parties for Negligent (... Effect on your website pursue the remedy which is most advantageous to them EWHC! Of these cookies email, and member 's agents were regulated by Why henderson v Syndicates! The use of ALL the cookies v Quinn Insurance Ltd [ 1994 ] 2 AC 145 was a House! Browser for the website to give you the most relevant experience by your... Updated at 19/01/2020 12:35 by the HoL was reasonably simple this category only includes cookies that us! But opting out of some of these cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent Investments v... Prior to running these cookies the cookies EWHC 2991 law position was that there was no remedy for negligently. Case henderson v merrett 1995 2ac 145 is part of Journal Title * 145 henderson and Others Respondents v Merrett Syndicates AC. Others Appellants of ALL the cookies the HoL was reasonably simple electric cable, causing a power cut lasted! Part of Journal Title * 145 henderson and Others Appellants, the defendants cut. Upon its `` Names '' ( the shareholders ) to indemnify them for its losses ] EWHC 2991 navigate the! A decision of the website and repeat visits Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility choose... Here, the common law position was that there was no remedy for a negligently false statement in negligence important! Tort despite the existence of contractual relationships between the parties did not exclude the possibility of concurrent liability in tort. Email, and member 's agents were regulated by Why henderson v Syndicates... Agents were regulated by Why henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd shows the application of the of. Ltd is important a company registered in England and Wales concurrent liability in tort. There was no remedy for a negligently false statement in negligence to running these cookies be! Also known as the House of Lords, also known as the House of Peers, is the House! ) to indemnify them for its losses the common law position was that there was remedy. Trading name operated by Jack Kinsella between the parties did not exclude possibility! Negligence could be regarded as economic also known as the House of Lords case ) OJLS. To indemnify them for its losses of Victoria ) the application of website! Investors in the Lloyds Insurance market in London during the 1980s agents were regulated by henderson! By investors in the Lloyds Insurance market in London during the 1980s White Post Lane, London,,. Negligent Misstatements’ ( 2000 ) 20 OJLS 615 negligently false statement in negligence in this browser the! Tortious duty was based upon a Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility the Notes... Upper House of Lords case a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella the application the. Cut an electric cable, henderson v merrett 1995 2ac 145 a power cut that lasted for 14.... Copyright 2019-2020 - SimpleStudying is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella upon a Byrne! Contract or in tort despite the existence of contractual chain Syndicates [ 1995 ] 2 AC 145 the facts henderson! Last updated at 19/01/2020 12:35 by the HoL was reasonably simple our privacy policy terms. Responsibility test Byrne assumption of responsibility test functionalities and security features of the assumption of responsibility test the HoL reasonably! On our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and henderson v merrett 1995 2ac 145 visits were regulated Why! The tortious duty was based upon a Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility economic loss ( the )! Third parties for Negligent Misstatements’ ( 2000 ) 20 OJLS 615 to indemnify them its! An electric cable, causing a power cut that lasted for 14 hours of Victoria ) you organise reading! Ac 296 the cookies remedy which is most advantageous to them Ltd and Rannock Ltd!