Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]

This is the only case that isn’t to do with medical negligence but it is integral to understanding Duty of Care as it’s where the test originated.

Facts:

• Caparo, an investor, purchased shares in a company that Dickman had done the accounts for.
• Caparo ended up losing money as Dickman’s accounts were negligent and the company wasn’t as profitable as first thought.

Problems:

• Could Caparo hold Dickman liable for loss of money due to negligent accounts despite the two parties not in contract with one another?

Decision:

• No, because Dickman had no duty of care obligation to Caparo.
• Duty of care branch was not satisfied.
• The two parties were not in contract with each other, there was no relationship.