Professional negligence: formula sheet

Key formulas

Elements of negligence

Negligence = duty of care + breach of duty + causation of damage (not too remote)

Duty comes first. If no duty exists, the claim fails and you need not discuss the rest.

Neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson)

Duty owed to those you can reasonably foresee would be harmed by your act or omission, because they are closely and directly affected

Gives the general idea of duty. It is not a full test on its own for modern cases.

Caparo three-stage test

1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm; 2. Proximity of relationship; 3. Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

All three must be satisfied. Apply it mainly in novel situations.

Negligent misstatement (Hedley Byrne)

Duty if: assumption of responsibility + reasonable reliance + advice given for a known purpose and likely to be relied on

Used for advice causing pure financial loss, including to third parties. A clear disclaimer can negate it.

Elements of negligence

Duty of care + Breach of duty + Causation + Damage that is not too remote

All elements must be proved. Breach is the second one.

Standard for professionals

Standard = reasonable professional with the skill the person claims to have

Objective test. Inexperience is not an excuse.

Bolam test

Not negligent if acted as a responsible body of professional opinion would accept as proper

A different view held by others does not make the practice negligent.

Bolitho qualification

Professional opinion must withstand logical analysis

Courts may reject an opinion that is not defensible.

Timing of judgement

Judge by knowledge and practice at the time of the act, not hindsight

A poor result is not by itself a breach.

But-for test

Causation proved if: but for the breach, the loss would not have occurred

Claimant proves it on the balance of probabilities. If the loss would have happened anyway, the claim fails on causation.

Remoteness rule

Recoverable loss = loss of a type reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach

The type of harm must be foreseeable. The extent or exact manner need not be.

Elements of negligence

Duty of care + Breach + Causation + Damage not too remote

All elements must be proved. Missing one defeats the claim.

Pure economic loss (Hedley Byrne principle)

Liability if: assumption of responsibility + reasonable reliance by the claimant

Applies to careless advice or statements causing financial loss with no physical damage.

Measure of damages

Damages = loss suffered ÷ aim: put the claimant in the position as if no negligence occurred

Compensation, not punishment. Read the ÷ as a reminder of the aim, not a calculation.

Elements of the claim

Duty of care + Breach + Causation of loss = liability

The claimant must prove all three before defences are even needed.

Contributory negligence

Damages payable = Total loss × (1 − claimant's share of fault)

Illustrative proportional reduction. For example, a 25% share on ₹10,00,000 gives ₹7,50,000. The court sets the share.

Limitation rule

Claim must be filed within the statutory period from when the cause of action arises

Expired claims are barred. Check the start date and any special extension rules. Do not invent period lengths.

Tort versus contract

Tort: duty imposed by law. Contract: duty from agreed terms.

Both may apply to the same facts. Exclusion clauses mainly affect contract and are limited by law.

Indemnity insurance cover

Insurer pays = covered loss up to the limit, less any excess

Uncovered amounts and exclusions fall on the professional.

Quick revision

• Four questions: duty, breach, causation and remoteness, defences and limitation.
• No duty of care means no claim, so stop there.
• A professional owes care to clients, and sometimes to others who foreseeably rely on the work.
• The standard of care is that of a reasonably competent professional in that field.
• Lacking experience does not lower the standard expected of a professional.
• Following accepted professional practice helps, but is not always a complete answer.
• Causation asks whether the loss would have happened but for the breach.
• Remoteness limits recovery to loss that was a reasonably foreseeable type of harm.
• Damages aim to put the claimant where they would have been without the breach.
• Contributory fault by the claimant can reduce the damages.
• Claims must be brought within the limitation period, so late claims can fail.
• Always apply each test to the facts given, not only in the abstract.

Common mistakes

• Treating the neighbour principle as the only test. Fix: Use it as background, then apply Caparo's three stages to new or doubtful situations.
• Dropping the third Caparo stage. Fix: Always write one line on policy, for example the risk of liability to an unlimited group.
• Treating a bad outcome as proof of breach. Fix: Say breach depends on conduct against the standard. A bad result alone does not prove it.
• Lowering the standard for a junior or inexperienced professional. Fix: State that the test is objective. A person claiming the skill is judged as a reasonably competent holder of it.
• Assuming a breach of duty is enough to be liable. Fix: Always write a separate causation paragraph. Ask what would have happened without the breach.
• Applying the but-for test the wrong way round. Fix: Remove the breach from the story. If the loss still happens, there is no causation.
• Saying contributory negligence always defeats the whole claim. Fix: State that it normally reduces damages in proportion to the client's fault, unless the facts show the client's act alone caused the loss.
• Quoting a specific limitation period from memory. Fix: Explain the principle, when time starts and the effect of expiry. Give a number only if your material states it for that claim.

Exam tips

• In problem questions, start with a short statement of the test, then spend most of your words applying it to the facts.
• Name the case with its point: Donoghue v Stevenson for the neighbour principle, Caparo for the three stages, Hedley Byrne for negligent advice. Do not add cases you are unsure of.
• Compare client and third-party facts. Examiners often change who relied on the advice, and the purpose, to test proximity.
• For MCQs, remember that all three Caparo stages must be met, and a contract is not required for a duty in tort.
• Keep duty separate from breach and causation. Write one clear conclusion on duty before moving on.
• Define standard of care in your first sentence: the reasonable professional with the claimed skill, judged objectively.
• Always name the Bolam test and explain it in plain words rather than just quoting the case name.
• Keep duty, breach, causation and damage as separate points. Examiners reward clear structure.