Search for: "Dickman, Appeal of"
Results 21 - 27
of 27
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2021, 3:42 am
Applying the three-step test for establishing a new duty of care formulated in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, Fraser J found that no relationship of proximity existed between RDS and the claimants based in Nigeria and that it would not be ‘fair just and reasonable’ to impose a duty of care on RDS. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 8:00 am
Indeed, we eagerly await the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Vidal-Hall case where, for the first time, misuse of private information was recognised by the Court of Appeal as a tort. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 3:59 am
Effectively the only issue not appealed was quantum. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 12:30 pm
Dickman (1990) 2 A.C. 605 principles, but the Court didn’t see any ‘creep’. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 10:50 pm
The Court adopted the test of Caparo Industries Ltd v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605 in establishing duty of care: Was the injury and loss reasonably foreseeable? [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 10:47 am
In Caparo v Dickman Lord Bridge cautioned against discussing duties of care in abstract terms divorced from factual context:"It is never sufficient to ask simply whether A owes B a duty of care. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 4:18 pm
In Caparo v Dickman Lord Bridge cautioned against discussing duties of care in abstract terms divorced from factual context: “It is never sufficient to ask simply whether A owes B a duty of care. [read post]
