Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:26:23 -0400

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Economic Loss in The House of Lords

Dear Colleagues:

The Commissioner case is very interesting. I wish it had been clearer that an assumption of responsibility and reasonable detrimental reliance were the only way to recover pure economic losses and that White v Jones is a dead-end (being a contract case as explained by Peter at the conference) but at least it is a step in the right direction.

I wonder though why the Sharp case is treated as 1) being so important; & 2) treated as a pure economic loss case since it seems that the destruction of the plaintiff's property right and the loss consequential on that which drives the result (Lord Mance acknowledges as much).

I also wonder if the result would have been different if the bank had intentionally refused to comply with the order. What do others think about that issue? Would it be just another Bradford v. Pickles?

Cheers,

Robert Stevens wrote:

The House of Lords has decided Commissioner for Custom & Excise v Barclays Bank.

Court of Appeal unanimously overturned. Banks do not owe duties of care to those suffering economic loss because of the bank's careless failure to comply with a 'mareva' injunction. Charles and Paul Mitchell's LQR note cited as useful.

Some bland comments about the useless three stage test. Assumption of responsibility continues its rehabilitation.

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>