The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Wielding Occam's razor: pruning strategies for economic loss

Wielding Occam's razor: pruning strategies for economic loss
Wielding Occam's razor: pruning strategies for economic loss
The English Court of Appeal is currently faced with three analytically distinct approaches to the question of when one party owes another a duty of care in respect of her economic interests, all of which bear the authority of the House of Lords. Unable to choose between them, it has recently adopted a fourth approach combining which combines them, in the apparent belief that the combination will eradicate any individual deficiencies. Against the background of a recent case, the author argues that this is a holding strategy at best and methodologically deficient. He also challenges the continuing lip-service paid by courts to models of liability based upon ‘assumptions of responsibility,’ examining and criticising the causes of their persistence in the law in the face of widespread academic criticism. Instead, the author argues, the House of Lords should now clearly endorse a single reasoning strategy to economic loss cases based on the three-stage approach in Caparo Industries v Dickman. Properly understood, this approach offers the best prospect of facilitating consistent and transparent decision-making in the longer term.
0143-6503
289-302
Barker, C.
39890323-84b1-46d6-97da-3f0f9f3a3989
Barker, C.
39890323-84b1-46d6-97da-3f0f9f3a3989

Barker, C. (2006) Wielding Occam's razor: pruning strategies for economic loss. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (2), 289-302. (doi:10.1093/ojls/gql004).

Record type: Article

Abstract

The English Court of Appeal is currently faced with three analytically distinct approaches to the question of when one party owes another a duty of care in respect of her economic interests, all of which bear the authority of the House of Lords. Unable to choose between them, it has recently adopted a fourth approach combining which combines them, in the apparent belief that the combination will eradicate any individual deficiencies. Against the background of a recent case, the author argues that this is a holding strategy at best and methodologically deficient. He also challenges the continuing lip-service paid by courts to models of liability based upon ‘assumptions of responsibility,’ examining and criticising the causes of their persistence in the law in the face of widespread academic criticism. Instead, the author argues, the House of Lords should now clearly endorse a single reasoning strategy to economic loss cases based on the three-stage approach in Caparo Industries v Dickman. Properly understood, this approach offers the best prospect of facilitating consistent and transparent decision-making in the longer term.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2006

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 27911
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/27911
ISSN: 0143-6503
PURE UUID: de94a047-0bae-4a3e-96b8-0de4b7d6e8ca

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 16 Jun 2006
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 07:21

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: C. Barker

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×