UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
FACULTY OF LAW
BACHELOR OF LAWS REGULAR CLASS
FIRST-YEAR 2022 GPR101(LAW OF TORTS 1) ASSIGNMENT
Group 4 Submission
Member details
1. Mokaya Cliff Atambo – G34/3809/2021
2. Wendy Chepchumba Koskei – G34/3469/2022
3. Ochanda Malcolm Luke – G34/3401/2022
4. Ndung’u Mercy Mumbi – G34/3369/2022
5. Michael Githinji – G34/3459/2022
6. Sylvia Wambua – G34/3451/2022
7. Owino Ezekiel King’ori - G34/3458/2022
8. Maitha Eddy Katana – G34/3367/2022
9. Maureen Njoki – G34/3447/2022
10. Syndy Atieno – G34/3483/2022
Declaration
We hereby declare that the following work, in regard to the requirements of the GPR 101
assignment instructions, is a collaborative effort of all the group members.
Name Signature Date
1
Misinterpretation of Negligence in Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd V. Heller & Partners Ltd.
Requirements: discuss and cite one authority/court ruling that supports the principles of
negligence in the above case.
Facts of the case
Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd, an advertising agency, wanted to know the credit score of one of their
customers Easipower Ltd, who was then banking with Heller & Partners Ltd. Hedley gave their
bank, National Provincial Bank a mandate to obtain this information from Heller, who wrote to
them concerning the same. Heller replied stating, “for your private use and without responsibility
on the part of the bank or its officials,” and then endorsing Easipower for the lending.
Hedley, relying on this information, gave credit to Easipower and later lost a lot of money when
Easipower went bankrupt. They then sued Heller, seeking damages for economic loss since the
reply they gave was negligent and in breach of duty of care.
Heller maintained that there was no duty of care with the mere statement they gave. And even if
there was a duty of care, the “without responsibility” clause detached them from the liability of
injury caused by the misinterpretation.
The House of Lords ruled that there was a duty of care. Lord Boothe said, “If someone possesses
a special skill undertakes to apply that skill for the assistance of another person who relies on
such a skill, a duty of care will rise.” However, since Heller had used the “without responsibility”
clause, they were effectively excluded from the liability of injury caused by the
misinterpretation.
In establishing the judgement of this case, the court used two steps:
1. Establishing whether Heller had a duty of care towards Hedley Byrne based on the direct
and close relationship they had; which in this case was bound by the use of a professional
skill in assistance of another in need of that skill.
2. If there is a duty of care owed, then the court ought to consider any clauses or arguments
that might reduce liability for breach of that duty. In this case, it was the “without
responsibility” in the statement by Heller.
Wokingham Borough Council V. Arshad, 2022 The King’s Bench Division
Reasonable Foreseeability and Duty of Care Owed for Psychiatric Injury
Arshad, a taxi driver, complained against Wokingham Borough Council for racial discrimination
that caused psychiatric injury on his part, negligence in the provision of advice that his Ford
Galaxy would be appropriate for taxi services, and breach of duty in carrying out their designated
obligation in proper car inspection and licensing.
2
Arshad had wanted to renew his license and the council had advised him to meet the standards of
vehicles for new licenses. So he bought a new Ford Galaxy. After this he contacted the council
with the details of the new car, hoping that it would meet the wheelchair-accessible requirement.
An officer from the council responded affirmatively, even going up to the extent of confirming
that they had Ford Galaxies in the taxi fleet. After making the necessary provision in the vehicle
and meeting the stipulated requirements, he got his license. The council then called him in for an
inspection and later suspended his license.
Arshad started working as a private car hire driver, and he complained against the council for
negligent misstatement and ambiguity, which was rejected anyway. He brought a claim to court,
after having been diagnosed with Depressive Disorder by an expert psychiatrist. The trial went
on well and Arshad was awarded damages. The council then appealed to the King’s Bench
Division which ruled on the appellant local authority's appeal from a decision of the Oxford
County Court which had awarded damages to the respondent. The court held, among other
things, that the judge at first instance had been fair, just, and reasonable in those circumstances to
impose a duty of care to avoid the economic loss which plainly would be a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the negligence. However, while any serious setback would be
capable of causing a degree of psychiatric harm to anyone, psychiatric injury in the instant case
was not so reasonably foreseeable as to make it appropriate for a local authority, giving
discretionary pre-application advice on a licensing matter, to owe a duty of care not to cause pure
psychiatric harm.
