![BL-2022-002117 - [2025] EWHC 2794 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
F.7 Conclusion on duty of care
F.7 Conclusion on duty of care
I conclude that there was no duty of care owed by the SFA to the Claimants in relation to the Decision Letter. In the absence of a finding as to the existence of a duty of care and its scope, it is pointless to attempt to consider whether such a duty has been breached.
- Heading
- Introduction
- B. The witnesses
- Expert evidence of Vivian Cohen
- C.2 The relevant principles
- C.3 The facts of this case
- C.4 Decision
- D.1 The SFA
- D.2 Carter & Carter
- D.3 The Company and the Funding Agreement
- D.4 2015: The proposed Inflexion acquisiton, Information Memorandum and Baker Tilly report
- D.5 Appointment of Sir Peter Lauener
- D.6 Nick Linford and FE Week
- D.7 2016: The Apprenticeship Levy and proposed Non-Levy Cap
- D.8 Autumn/Winter 2016: The Trilantic Acquisition
- D.9 December 2016: The ‘blood pressure’ email
- D.10 The 13 December 2016 meeting
- D.11 December 2016 – January 2017: The Decision Letter and aftermath
- D.12 Further attempts to sell the business
- D.13 2017-2018: Emergence of irregularities in 3AAA’s records
- E. Misfeasance in public office
- E.2 The pleaded claim
- E.3 Targeted malice - a specific intent to injure
- E.4 Discussion – targeted malice
- E.5 Discussion - untargeted malice
- F. The claim in negligence
- F.1 A duty of care
- F.2 Pure economic loss
- F.3 Assumption of responsibility
- F.4 Communications crossing the line
- F.5 The task
- F.6 A White v Jones lacuna
- F.7 Conclusion on duty of care
- G. Loss
- H.1 “Net Cash Consideration”
- H.2 Value of Claimants’ shares in December 2016
- H.3 The significance of data manipulation
- Conclusions