CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

Lord Oliver noted that his formulation accorded inter alia with the US authority of Glanzer v Shepard (1922) 135 N.E. 275, where a purchaser paid too much for goods because of a negligent weight certification by a public weigher and (as Lord Oliver summarised it), “the identity of the recipient of the certificate was known, the purpose of the certificate was known, and the certificate was issued for the very purpose of enabling the price of the goods to be ascertained and with the knowledge that it would be acted upon by the recipient for that purpose” (Caparo v Dickman at 638F). Lord Bridge similarly emphasised the importance of the defendant’s knowledge of a specific purpose, transaction and recipient for information or advice they were asked to provide (ibid, at 620H-621C). In Hedley Byrne itself, at 486, Lord Reid reasoned thus:

“A reasonable man, knowing that he was being trusted or that his skill and judgment were being relied on, would, I think, have three courses open to him. He could keep silent or decline to give the information or advice sought: or he could give an answer with a clear qualification that he accepted no responsibility for it or that it was given without that reflection or inquiry which a careful answer would require: or he could simply answer without any such qualification. If he chooses to adopt the last course he must, I think, be held to have accepted some responsibility for his answer being given carefully, or to have accepted a relationship with the inquirer which requires him to exercise such care as the circumstances require.”