案例分析:Caparo Industries Plc诉Dickman案

K. Satyan
{"title":"案例分析:Caparo Industries Plc诉Dickman案","authors":"K. Satyan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2626806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman was a landmark case regarding the test for a duty of care. In this case, the question as to when duty of care arises in cases of negligence was discussed in detail. In specific, the question was whether the auditors of the Company Fidelity Plc owed a duty of care to the prospective and the current investors especially Caparo Industries (who had a majority shares of 91.8%) in case of any action taken by Caparo Industries in pursuance of the misleading accounts produced by the auditors. The auditors were thus sued for negligence. In furtherance of the same, the House of Lords laid down the three-fold test. The case has also effectively redefines the neighbourhood principle as laid down in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. It also briefly takes into account the other tests for establishing duty of care i.e. Anns test laid down in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council. The question in the current case was thus the scope of the assumption of responsibility, and what the limits of liability ought to be. This paper is a humble effort to throw light on the same.","PeriodicalId":255520,"journal":{"name":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case Analysis: Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman\",\"authors\":\"K. Satyan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2626806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman was a landmark case regarding the test for a duty of care. In this case, the question as to when duty of care arises in cases of negligence was discussed in detail. In specific, the question was whether the auditors of the Company Fidelity Plc owed a duty of care to the prospective and the current investors especially Caparo Industries (who had a majority shares of 91.8%) in case of any action taken by Caparo Industries in pursuance of the misleading accounts produced by the auditors. The auditors were thus sued for negligence. In furtherance of the same, the House of Lords laid down the three-fold test. The case has also effectively redefines the neighbourhood principle as laid down in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. It also briefly takes into account the other tests for establishing duty of care i.e. Anns test laid down in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council. The question in the current case was thus the scope of the assumption of responsibility, and what the limits of liability ought to be. This paper is a humble effort to throw light on the same.\",\"PeriodicalId\":255520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2626806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2626806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

卡帕罗工业公司诉迪克曼案是关于注意义务检验的一个具有里程碑意义的案例。在本案例中,详细讨论了过失案件中注意义务何时产生的问题。具体而言,问题是公司Fidelity Plc的审计师是否对潜在和当前投资者,特别是Caparo Industries(拥有91.8%的多数股份)负有注意义务,如果Caparo Industries根据审计师提供的误导性账目采取任何行动。审计人员因此被指控玩忽职守。为了进一步推动这一点,上议院制定了三重测试。该案还有效地重新定义了在多诺霍诉史蒂文森案中确立的邻里原则。它还简要地考虑了确立注意义务的其他检验标准,即安斯诉默顿伦敦自治市议会中规定的安斯检验标准。因此,本案的问题是承担责任的范围,以及责任的限度应该是什么。这篇文章是为了阐明这一问题而做的一项微薄的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Case Analysis: Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman
The Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman was a landmark case regarding the test for a duty of care. In this case, the question as to when duty of care arises in cases of negligence was discussed in detail. In specific, the question was whether the auditors of the Company Fidelity Plc owed a duty of care to the prospective and the current investors especially Caparo Industries (who had a majority shares of 91.8%) in case of any action taken by Caparo Industries in pursuance of the misleading accounts produced by the auditors. The auditors were thus sued for negligence. In furtherance of the same, the House of Lords laid down the three-fold test. The case has also effectively redefines the neighbourhood principle as laid down in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. It also briefly takes into account the other tests for establishing duty of care i.e. Anns test laid down in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council. The question in the current case was thus the scope of the assumption of responsibility, and what the limits of liability ought to be. This paper is a humble effort to throw light on the same.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pith and Marrow is Dead… Long Live Pith and Marrow: The Doctrine of Equivalents After Actavis THE ATO TR 2021/D4 - Taxation of Software Payments as Royalties - Comments on the Draft Ruling The Internal Market: An Historical Perspective AI in the Boardroom: Let the Law be in the Driving Seat Back to School - and After
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1