Caparo Approach Essay

2919 Words6 Pages

The issue in question is that The High Court of Australia dismissed the Caparo approach because neither proximity nor reasonableness had the important accuracy to serve as commonsense tests and that the recent was capable of for being misconstrued as a welcome to form strategy instead of to strike down guideline.
The question requires one to discuss the Caparo approach in great detail and on what grounds did the High Court of Australia rejected this approach. In order to do that, one would first briefly explain the approaches taken in regards to duty of care leading to the Caparo approach – Pre Donoghue, Donoghue v Stevenson and Post Donoghue – as well as the Sullivan case.
In order to constitute the act of negligence, certain elements must be fulfilled. These elements are duty of care, breach of that duty, causation and the damage is not too remote.
Duty of care
The claimant …show more content…

In Clunis , it was held that the defendant Health Authority had an obvious duty of care to treat and to provide aftercare on discharge from hospital for the claimant who had a long history of mental illness. The Court of Appeal would not accept that this duty extended so that the defendants would be liable when the man stabbed another man to death and was convicted of manslaughter.
Conclusion
As seen through case law above, a dislike for deciding cases purely on policy grounds was one of the reasons for overruling Anns. Now policy may still be a factor, only a more hidden one. However, sometimes judges will impose a duty because the public body has assumed a responsibility towards people who might suffer damage if it fails to act.
The High Court of Australia has indicated that it does not want to formulate wide social policy, or reason by way of ad hoc policy considerations. It has expressed a preference to reason by reference to policy already inherent in the law. This is what the Court attempted to do in

Open Document