J_Hartshorne_article_.pdf (131.14 kB)
Download file

Confusion, Contradiction and Chaos within the House of Lords post Caparo v Dickman

Download (131.14 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 22.11.2012, 11:39 by John Hartshorne
This article seeks to demonstrate how decisions of the House of Lords upon duty of care in negligence following Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 have introduced confusion into the law and created avoidable difficulties for those who must apply them. It describes the varying concepts which have been adopted by their Lordships when analysing whether to create new duties of care, and explores the extent to which these concepts are intelligible. It draws attention to the contradictory reasoning adopted by their Lordships, which has contributed to general erosion in the integrity of their judgments. It is contended that the making of just decisions and the creation of clear laws are not necessarily mutually incompatible objectives.

History

Citation

Tort Law Review, 2008, 16 (1), pp. 8-22

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF ARTS, HUMANITIES AND LAW/School of Law

Version

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

Tort Law Review

Publisher

Thomson Reuters

issn

1039-3285

Available date

22/11/2012

Publisher version

http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/tort-law-review-online/productdetail/97195

Notes

This is an electronic version of an article first published in Tort Law Review, 2008, 16 (1), pp. 8-22. Tort Law Review is available online at; http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au/tort-law-review-online/productdetail/97195.

Language

en

Usage metrics

Categories

Keywords

Exports