LANDMARK CASE

Caparo Industries v. Dickman

[1990] 2 AC 605 · House of Lords (UK) · Torts

At a glance

Citation: [1990] 2 AC 605
Court: House of Lords (UK)
Area of law: Torts
In one line: The three part test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable. No duty was owed here.

1 Facts

An investor relied on audited accounts to buy shares and suffered loss.

2 Issue

When is a duty of care owed?

3 What the court decided

The three part test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable. No duty was owed here.

4 Why it matters

A widely cited test for duty of care.

5 Think about it

Apply the Caparo test to a legal advisor.

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Torts

Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) YB 11 Hen IV
Hedley Byrne and Co. v. Heller and Partners [1964] AC 465
Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1039

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.