Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd

CIVIL PROCEDURE: TORTS; Negligence

COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL DIVISION

LORD DENNING MR, EDMUND DAVIES AND LAWTON LJJ
25, 26, 27 APRIL, 22 JUNE 1972

Damages – Remoteness of damage – Negligence – Foreseeability – Economic loss not consequent on physical
damage – Electric cable severed causing power failure in plaintiffs’ factory – Molten metal in furnace damaged
and profit lost – Melting of other metal impossible during interruption and further profit lost – Whether damages
recoverable for loss of profit in respect of melting which could not be undertaken.

The plaintiffs manufactured stainless steel alloys at a factory which was directly supplied with electricity by a
cable from a power station. The factory worked 24 hours a day. Continuous power was required to maintain the
temperature in a furnace in which metal was melted. The defendants’ employees, who were working on a near-by
road, damaged the cable whilst using an excavating shovel. The electricity board shut off the power supply to the
factory for 14 1/2 hours until the cable was mended. There was a danger that a ‘melt’ in the furnace might solidify
and damage the furnace’s lining, so the plaintiffs poured oxygen on to the ‘melt’ and removed it, thus reducing its
value by £368. If the supply had not been cut off, they would have made a profit of £400 on the ‘melt’, and £1,767
on another four ‘melts’, which would have been put into the furnace. They claimed damages from the defendants
in respect of all three sums. The defendants admitted that their employees had been negligent, but disputed the
amount of their liability.

Held –(i) The defendants were liable in respect of the physical damage to the ‘melt’ and for the loss of profit on it,
for that loss was consequential on the physical damage (see p 564 f, p 565 b and p 574 a, post); SCM (United
Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall & Son Ltd [1970] 3 All ER 245 followed.
(ii)(Edmund Davies LJ dissenting) the defendants were not liable for the loss of profit on the other four
‘melts’ because—
(a) no remedy was available in respect of economic loss unconnected with physical damage (see p 564 g and
p 573 h to p 574 a, post); Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co [1874–80] All ER Rep 220 followed;
(b) there was no principle of ‘parasitic’ damages in English law to the effect that there were some heads of
damage which, if they stood alone, would not be recoverable, but would be if they could be annexed to some other
claim for damages, ie that the economic loss in respect of the four ‘melts’ was recoverable as a ‘parasite’ by being
attached to the claim in respect of the first ‘melt’(see p 561 c d and g and p 573 h, post); Re London, Tilbury and
Southend Railway Co & Gower’s Walk Schools Trustees (1889) 24 QBD 326, Horton v Colwyn Bay and Colwyn
Urban Council [1908] 1 KB 327 and Griffith v Richard Clay & Sons Ltd [1912] 2 Ch 291 explained.
Per Lord Denning MR. At bottom the question of recovering economic loss is one of policy. Whenever the
courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of
the defendant. Whenever the courts set bounds to the damages recoverable—saying that they are or are not, too
remote—they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the liability of the defendants. The time has come to discard
the tests which have been propounded in the reported cases and which have proved so elusive. It is better to
consider the particular relationship in hand, and see whether or not, as a matter of policy, economic loss should be
recoverable (see p 561 j and p 562 g, post).
557
Per Lawton LJ. The differences which undoubtedly exist between what damage can be recovered in one type
of case and what in another cannot be reconciled on any logical basis. Such differences have arisen because of the
policy of the law and it may be that there should be one policy for all cases; but the enunciation of such a policy is
not a task for the court (see p 573 b, post).

Notes
For remoteness of damages in tort, see 11 Halsbury’s Laws (3rd Edn) 277, 278, paras 458, 459, and for cases on
the subject, see 17 Digest (Repl) 121–125, 325–355.

Cases referred to in judgments

Atkinson v Newcastle & Gateshead Waterworks Co (1877) 2 Ex D 441,[1874–80] All ER Rep 757, 46 LJEx 775,
36 LT 761, CA, 33 Digest (Repl) 28, 134.
Baker v Crow Carrying Co Ltd (1 February 1960) unreported, CA.
Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 394,[1952] AC 716, HL, Digest (Cont Vol A) 680, 683.
British Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 1252,[1969] 1 WLR 959, Digest (Cont Vol C)
727, 77h.
Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 1 All ER 426,[1951] 2 KB 164, CA 36 Digest (Repl) 17, 75.
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co (1875) LR 10 QB 453,[1874–80] All ER Rep 220, 44 LJQB 139, 33 LT 475, 39
JP 791, 1 Digest (Repl) 37, 277.
Clegg, Parkinson & Co v Earby Gas Co [1896] 1 QB 592, 65 LJQB 339, DC, 38 Digest (Repl) 49, 250.
Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 All ER 462,[1972] 1 QB 373,[1972] 2 WLR 299,[1972] 1
Lloyd’s Rep 227, CA.
Electrochrome Ltd v Welsh Plastics Ltd [1968] 2 All ER 205, Digest (Cont Vol C) 2, 300b.
Elliott Steam Tug Co v Shipping Controller [1922] 1 KB 127, 91 LJKB 294, 126 LT 158, 15 Asp MLC 406, CA,
17 Digest (Repl) 109, 230.
Furniss v Fitchett [1958] NZLR 396, 33 Digest (Repl) 529,*96.
Geddis v Bann Reservoir Proprietors (1878) 3 App Cas 430, HL, 38 Digest (Repl) 16, 64.
Griffith v Richard Clay & Sons Ltd [1912] 2 Ch 291, 81 LJCh 809, 106 LT 963, CA, 19 Digest (Repl) 212, 1546.
Hartley v Mayoh & Co [1954] 1 All ER 375,[1954] 1 QB 383,[1954] 1 WLR 355, 118 JP 178, CA, Digest (Cont
Vol A) 1140, 77a.
Heard v Brymbo Steel Co Ltd [1947] KB 692,[1948] LJR 372, 177 LT 251, 80 Lloyd LR 424, CA, 20 Digest
(Repl) 233, 141.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 575,[1964] AC 465,[1963] 3 WLR 101,[1963] 1
Lloyd’s Rep 485, HL, Digest (Cont Vol A) 51, 1117a.
Horton v Colwyn Bay and Colwyn Urban Council [1908] 1 KB 327, 77 LJKB 215, 98 LT 547, 72 JP 57, CA, 11
Digest (Repl) 144, 238.
Inland Revenue Comrs v Hambrook [1956] 3 All ER 338,[1956] 2 QB 656,[1956] 3 WLR 643, CA, 34 Digest
(Repl) 225, 1632.
Jackson v Watson & Sons [1909] 2 KB 193, 78 LJBK 587, 100 LT 799, CA, 17 Digest (Repl) 118, 296.
King v Phillips [1953] 1 All ER 617,[1953] 1 QB 429,[1953] 2 WLR 526, CA, Digest (Cont Vol A) 1189, 1039.
Kirkham v Boughey [1957] 3 All ER 153,[1958] 2 QB 338,[1957] 3 WLR 626, Digest (Cont Vol A) 1195, 1068b.
Lampert v Eastern National Omnibus Co Ltd [1954] 2 All ER 719,[1954] 1 WLR 1047, Digest (Cont Vol A) 680,
683a.
Leeds Industrial Co-op Society Ltd v Slack [1924] AC 851,[1924] All ER Rep 259, 93 LJCh 436, 131 LT 710, HL,
19 Digest (Repl) 206, 1468.
Liesbosch Dredger (Owners) v Steamship Edison (Owners) [1933] AC 449, 102 LJP 73, 18 Asp MLC 380; sub
nom The Edison [1933] All ER Rep 144, 149 LT 49, HL, 17 Digest (Repl) 93, 103.
558
London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Co & Gower’s Walk Schools Trustees, Re (1889) 24 QBD 326, 62 LT 306;
sub nom Re Gower’s Walk Schools Trustees & London, Tilbury & Southend Railway Co, 59 LJQB 162, CA,
19 Digest (Repl) 212, 1545.
Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E & B 216,[1843–60] All ER Rep 208 22 LJQB 463, 118 ER 749, 17 Digest (Repl) 116,
285.
Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co Ltd [1967] 3 All ER 775,[1969] 1 QB 219,[1967] 2
WLR 1569, Digest (Cont Vol C) 883, 1806c.
Midwood & Co Ltd v Manchester Corpn [1905] 2 KB 597, 74 LJKB 884, 93 LT 525, 69 JP 348, CA, 38 Digest
(Repl) 43, 219.
Milnes v Huddersfield Corpn (1886) 11 App Cas 511,[1886–90] All ER Rep 350, 56 LJQB 1, 55 LT 617, 50 JP
676, HL, 47 Digest (Repl) 599, 143.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp [1970] 1 All ER 1009,[1970] 2 QB 238,[1970] 2 WLR 802,
134 JP 358, CA, Digest (Cont Vol C) 830, 926f.
Morrison Steamship Co Ltd v Steamship Greystoke Castle (Owners of Cargo lately laden on) [1946] 2 All ER 696,
[1947] AC 265,[1947] LJR 297, 176 LT 66, HL, 41 Digest (Repl) 514, 2887.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound)(No 1) [1961] 1 All ER
404,[1961] AC 388,[1961] 2 WLR 126,[1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, PC, Digest (Cont Vol A) 1148, 185a.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330,[1861–73] All ER Rep 1, 37 LJEx 161, 19 LT 220, 33 JP 70, HL, 36
Digest (Repl) 282, 334.
SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall & Son Ltd [1970] 3 All ER 245,[1971] 1 QB 337,[1970] 3 WLR 694,
CA, Digest (Cont Vol C) 728, 77k.
Seaway Hotels Ltd v Cragg (Canada) Ltd and Consumers’ Gas Co (1959) 21 DLR (2d) 264,[1959] OR 581,[1959]
OWN 359, 25 Digest (Repl) 538,*64.
Simpson & Co v Thompson (1877) 3 App Cas 279, 58 LT 1, 3 Asp MLC 567, HL, 1 Digest (Repl) 61, 452.
Société Anonyme de Remorquage à Héliece v Bennetts [1911] 1 KB 243, 80 LJKB 228, 16 Com cas 24, 1 Digest
(Repl) 33, 250.
Stevens v Aldershot Gas, Water and District Lighting Co (1932) 102 LJKB 12, 31 LGR 48, 20 Digest (Repl) 214,
60.
Thurston v Charles (1905) 21 TLR 659, 32 Digest (Repl) 133, 1529.
Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1965] 3 All ER 560,[1966] 1 QB 569,[1965] 3 WLR
1082,[1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 414, Digest (Cont Vol B) 554, 109c.

Appeal
This was an appeal by the defendants, Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd, against the judgment of Faulks J on 14
December 1971 at Birmingham Assizes, in favour of the plaintiffs, Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd, who had claimed
damages for negligence in that the defendants’ employees had damaged an electricity cable supplying power to the
plaintiffs’ alloy factory with the result that (a) a ‘melt’ in a furnace was damaged and a loss of profit on it was
incurred; and (b) the plaintiffs had suffered a further loss in respect of four other ‘melts’ which could not be put
into the furnace whilst the supply was interrupted. Faulks awarded the plaintiffs £2,535 damages. The facts are
set out in the judgment of Lord Denning MR.

R H Tucker QC and Piers Ashworth for the defendants.

Christopher Bathurst for the plaintiffs.

Cur adv vult

22 June 1972. The following judgments were delivered.

LORD DENNING MR. The plaintiffs, Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd, have a factory in Birmingham where they
manufacture stainless steel. The factory obtains its electricity by a direct cable for a power station of the Midlands
Electricity Board.
559
In June 1969 contractors called Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd, the defendants, were doing work on a road
about a quarter of a mile away. They were going to dig up the road with a big power-driven excavating shovel.
They made enquiries about the place of the cables, mains and so forth, under the road. They were given plans
showing them. But unfortunately their men did not take reasonable care. The shovel damaged the cable which
supplied electricity to the plaintiffs’ works. The electricity board shut down the power whilst they mended the
cable.
The factory was at that time working continuously for 24 hours all round the clock. The electric power was
shut off at 7.40 pm on 12 June 1969, and was off for 14 1/2 hours until it was restored at 10.00 am on 13 June
1969. This was all through the night and a couple of hours more. But, as this factory was doing night work, it
suffered loss. At the time when the power was shut off, there was an arc furnace in which metal was being melted
in order to be converted into ingots. Electric power was needed throughout in order to maintain the temperature
and melt the metal. When the power failed, there was a danger that the metal might solidify in the furnace and do
damage to the lining of the furnace. So the plaintiffs used oxygen to melt the material and poured it from a tap out
of the furnace. But this meant that the melted material was of much less value. The physical damage was assessed
at £368. In addition, if that particular melt had been properly completed, the plaintiffs would have made a profit
on it of £400. Furthermore, during those 14 1/2 hours, when the power was cut off, the plaintiffs would have been
able to put four more melts through the furnace; and, by being unable to do so, they lost a profit of £1,767.
The plaintiffs claim all those sums as damages against the defendants for negligence. No evidence was given
at the trial, because the defendants admitted that they had been negligent. The contest was solely on the amount of
damages. The defendants take their stand on the recent decision in this court of SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J
Whittall & Son Ltd. They admit that they are liable for the £368 physical damages. They did not greatly dispute
that they are also liable for the £400 loss of profit on the first melt, because that was truly consequential on the
physical damages and thus covered by SCM v Whittall. But they deny that they are liable for the £1,767 for the
other four melts. They say that was economic loss for which they are not liable. The judge rejected their
contention and held them liable for all the loss. The defendants appeal to this court.
Counsel for the plaintiffs raised a point which was not discussed in SCM v Whittall. He contended that there
was a principle of English law relating to ‘parasitic damages’. By this he meant that there are some heads of
damage which, if they stood alone, would not be recoverable; but, nevertheless, if they could be annexed to some
other legitimate claim for damages, might yet be recoverable. They are said to be ‘parasitic’ because, like a
parasite, in biology, they cannot exist on their own, but depend on others for their life and nourishment. Applying
this principle he contended that, even if the economic loss (£1,767) on these four melts, standing alone, would not
be recoverable, nevertheless by being attached to the other claim it can be added to it, and recovered as a ‘parasite’
to it.
Counsel sought to establish this principle by reference to the books. He cited a case where the owner of an
old house was entitled to ancient lights for some small old windows. He pulled down the old house and put up a
new house with big new windows. The defendants afterwards put up a building which obstructed the big new
windows. The plaintiff was held entitled to be compensated for the loss of light through the whole space of the big
new windows and not merely through the little space of the small old windows: see Re London, Tilbury and
Southend Railway Co & Gower’s Walk Schools Trustees. That decision was considered in Horton v Colwyn 560
Bay and Colwyn Urban Council, and Buckley LJ drew from it a general proposition which he stated to be this
([1908] 1 KB at 341):

‘… if an actionable wrong has been done to the claimant he is entitled to recover all the damage
resulting from that wrong, and none the less because he would have had no right of action for some part of
the damage if the wrong had not also created a damage which was actionable.’

In a similar case relating to ancient lights, a similar result was reached: see Griffith v Richard Clay & Sons Ltd.
Counsel for the plaintiffs drew our attention to a number of other cases in which, he said the same principle was
applied, although it was not expressly stated in them.
I do not like this doctrine of ‘parasitic damages’. I do not like the very word ‘parasite’. A ‘parasite’ is one
who is a useless hanger-on sucking the substance out of others. ‘Parasitic’ is the adjective derived from it. It is a
term of abuse. It is an opprobrious epithet. The phrase ‘parasitic damages’ conveys to my mind the idea of
damages which ought not in justice to be awarded, but which somehow or other have been allowed to get through
by hanging on to others. If such be the concept underlying the doctrine, then the sooner it is got rid of the better.
It has never been used in any case up until now. It has only appeared hitherto in the textbooks. I hope it will
disappear from them after this case.
I do not believe there is any such doctrine. The cases on ancient lights stand in a category by themselves and
are to be explained in this way. If a house has ancient lights which are threatened by a new building, the owner, if
he moves promptly, may obtain an injunction to restrain the erection of the new building. The court, however,
may refuse an injunction and award him damages in lieu of an injunction: see Leeds Industrial Co-op Society Ltd
v Slack. These damages would be, in effect, buying a right to put up the new building. If the owner, however,
delays and allows the new building to go up without making any objection—so that he cannot seek an injunction—
I do not think he should recover damages for his big new windows (for which he has no right). He ought only to
recover damages for the small old windows (for which he has a right).
None of the other cases gives any difficulty. In all of them there was some good reason for adding on the
extra damages—not because they were improper, but because they flowed naturally and directly from the wrong
done and could reasonably have been foreseen as a consequence of it. I reject, therefore, counsel’s argument based
on ‘parasitic’ damages.
Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted in the alternative that the views expressed by Winn LJ and me in SCM v
Whittall were wrong. He said that if there was any limitation on the recovery of economic loss, it was to be found
by restricting the sphere of duty, and not by limiting the type of damages recoverable. In this present case, he said,
the defendants admittedly were under a duty to the plaintiffs and had broken it. The damages by way of economic
loss were foreseeable, and, therefore, they should be recoverable. He cited several statements from the books in
support of his submissions, including some by myself.
At bottom I think the question of recovering economic loss is one of policy. Whenever the courts draw a line
to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant.
Whenever the courts set bounds to the damages recoverable—saying that they are, or are not, too remote—they do
it as matter of policy so as to limit the liability of the defendant.
561
In many of the cases where economic loss has been held not to be recoverable, it has been put on the ground
that the defendant was under no duty to the plaintiff. Thus where a person is injured in a road accident by the
negligence of another, the negligent driver owes a duty to the injured man himself, but he owes no duty to the
servant of the injured man: see Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ltd ([1952] 2 All ER 394 at 398,[1952] AC 716 at 731);
nor to the master of the injured man: Inland Revenue Comrs v Hambrook ([1956] 3 All ER 338 at 339, 340,[1956]
2 QB 656 at 660); nor to anyone else who suffers loss because he had a contract with the injured man: see
Simpson & Co v Thomson ((1877) 3 App Cas 279 at 289); nor indeed to anyone who only suffers economic loss on
account of the accident: see Kirkham v Boughey ([1957] 3 All ER 153 at 155,[1958] 2 QB 338 at 341). Likewise,
when property is damaged by the negligence of another, the negligent tortfeasor owes a duty to the owner or
possessor of the chattel, but not to one who suffers loss only because he had a contract entitling him to use the
chattel or giving him a right to receive it at some later date: see Elliott Steam Tug Co v Shipping Controller
([1922] 1 KB 127 at 139) and Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co Ltd ([1967] 3 All ER 775
at 794,[1969] 1 QB 219 at 251, 252).
In other cases, however, the defendant seems clearly to have been under a duty to the plaintiff, but the
economic loss has not been recovered because it is too remote. Take the illustration given by Blackburn J in Cattle
v Stockton Waterworks Co ((1875) LR 10 QB 453 at 457,[1874–80] All ER Rep 220 at 223): when water escapes
from a reservoir and floods a coalmine where many men are working; those who had their tools or clothes
destroyed could recover, but those who only lost their wages could not. Similarly, when the defendants’ ship
negligently sank a ship which was being towed by a tug, the owner of the tug lost his remuneration, but he could
not recover it from the negligent ship although the same duty (of navigation with reasonable care) was owed to
both tug and tow: see Société Remorquage à Hélice v Bennetts ([1911] 1 KB 243 at 248). In such cases if the
plaintiff or his property had been physically injured, he would have recovered; but, as he only suffered economic
loss, he is held not entitled to recover. This is, I should think, because the loss is regarded by the law as too
remote: see King v Phillips ([1953] 1 All ER 617 at 622,[1953] 1 QB 429 at 439, 440).
On the other hand, in the cases where economic loss by itself has been held to be recoverable, it is plain that
there was a duty to the plaintiff and the loss was not too remote. Such as when one ship negligently runs down
another ship, and damages it, with the result that the cargo has to be discharged and reloaded. The negligent ship
was already under a duty to the cargo-owners; and they can recover the cost of discharging and reloading it, as it is
not too remote: see Morrison Steamship Co Ltd v Steamship Greystoke Castle (Owners of Cargo lately laden on).
Likewise, when a banker negligently gives a reference to one who acts on it, the duty is plain and the damage is
not too remote: see Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd.
The more I think about these cases, the more difficult I find it to put each into its proper pigeon-hole.
Sometimes I say: ‘There was no duty.’ In others I say: ‘The damage was too remote.’ So much so that I think
the time has come to discard those tests which have proved so elusive. It seems to me better to consider the
particular relationship in hand, and see whether or not, as a matter of policy, economic loss should be recoverable.
Thus in Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute it was plain that the loss suffered by the
auctioneers was not recoverable, 562no matter whether it is put on the ground that there was no duty or that the
damage was too remote. Again, in Electrochrome Ltd v Welsh Plastics Ltd, it is plain that the economic loss
suffered by the plaintiffs’ factory (due to the damage to the fire hydrant) was not recoverable, whether because
there was no duty or that it was too remote.
So I turn to the relationship in the present case. It is of common occurrence. The parties concerned are the
electricity board who are under a statutory duty to maintain supplies of electricity in their district; the inhabitants
of the district, including this factory, who are entitled by statute to a continuous supply of electricity for their use;
and the contractors who dig up the road. Similar relationships occur with other statutory bodies, such as gas and
water undertakings. The cable may be damaged by the negligence of the statutory undertaker, or by the negligence
of the contractor, or by accident without any negligence by anyone; and the power may have to be cut off whilst
the cable is repaired. Or the power may be cut off owing to a short-circuit in the power house; and so forth. If the
cutting off of the supply causes economic loss to the consumers, should it as matter of policy be recoverable? And
against whom?
The first consideration is the position of the statutory undertakers. If the board do not keep up the voltage or
pressure of electricity, gas or water—or, likewise, if they shut it off for repairs—and thereby cause economic loss
to their consumers, they are not liable in damages, not even if the cause of it is due to their own negligence. The
only remedy (which is hardly ever pursued) is to prosecute the board before the justices. Such is the result of
many cases, starting with a water board: Atkinson v Newcastle & Gateshead Waterworks Co; going on to a gas
board: Clegg, Parkinson & Co v Earby Gas Co; and then to an electricity company: Stevens v Aldershot Gas,
Water and District Lighting Co. In those cases the courts, looking at the legislative enactments, held that
Parliament did not intend to expose the board to liability for damages to the inhabitants en masse: see what Lord
Cairns LC saida and Wills Jb. No distinction was made between economic loss and physical damage; and taken at
their face value the reasoning would mean that the board was not liable for physical damage either. But there is
another group of cases which go to show that, if the board, by their negligence in the conduct of their supply, cause
direct physical damage to person or property, the cases seem to show that they are liable: see Milnes v
Huddersfield Corpn ((1886) 11 App Cas 511 at 530) per Lord Blackburn; Midwood & Co Ltd v Manchester
Corpn; Heard v Brymbo Steel Co Ltd and Hartley v Mayoh & Co. But one thing is clear, the board have never
been held liable for economic loss only. If such be the policy of the legislature in regard to electricity boards, it
would seem right for the common law to adopt a similar policy in regard to contractors. If the electricity boards
are not liable for economic loss due to negligence which results in the cutting off of the supply, nor should a
contractor be liable.
________________________________________
a In Atkinson v Newcastle & Gateshead Waterworks Co (1877) 2 Ex D at 445
b In Clegg, Parkinson & Co v Earby Gas Co [1896] 1 QB at 595
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The second consideration is the nature of the hazard, namely, the cutting of the supply of electricity. This is a
hazard which we all run. It may be due to a short circuit, to a flash of lightning, to a tree falling on the wires, to an
accidental cutting of the cable, or even to the negligence of someone or other. And when it does happen, it affects
a multitude of persons; not as a rule by way of physical damage to them or their property, but by putting them to
inconvenience, and sometimes to 563 economic loss. The supply is usually restored in a few hours, so the
economic loss is not very large. Such a hazard is regarded by most people as a thing they must put up with—
without seeking compensation from anyone. Some there are who install a stand-by system. Others seek refuge by
taking out an insurance policy against breakdown in the supply. But most people are content to take the risk on
themselves. When the supply is cut off, they do not go running round to their solicitor. They do not try to find out
whether it was anyone’s fault. They just put up with it. They try to make up the economic loss by doing more
work next day. This is a healthy attitude which the law should encourage.
The third consideration is this. If claims for economic loss were permitted for this particular hazard, there
would be no end of claims. Some might be genuine, but many might be inflated, or even false. A machine might
not have been in use anyway, but it would be easy to put it down to the cut in supply. It would be well-nigh
impossible to check the claims. If there was economic loss on one day, did the applicant do his best to mitigate it
by working harder next day? And so forth. Rather than expose claimants to such temptation and defendants to
such hard labour—on comparatively small claims—it is better to disallow economic loss altogether, at any rate
when it stands alone, independent of any physical damage.
The fourth consideration is that, in such a hazard as this, the risk of economic loss should be suffered by the
whole community who suffer the losses—usually many but comparatively small losses—rather than on the one
pair of shoulders, that is, on the contractor on whom the total of them, all added together, might be very heavy.
The fifth consideration is that the law provides for deserving cases. If the defendant is guilty of negligence
which cuts off the electricity supply and causes actual physical damage to person or property, that physical damage
can be recovered: see Baker v Crow Carrying Co Ltd, referred to by Buckley LJ in SCM v Whittall ([1970] 3 All
ER at 261,[1971] 1 QB at 356), and also any economic loss truly consequential on the material damage: see
British Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd and SCM v Whittall. Such cases will be comparatively few.
They will be readily capable of proof and will be easily checked. They should be and are admitted.
These considerations lead me to the conclusion that the plaintiffs should recover for the physical damage to
the one melt (£368), and the loss of profit on that melt consequent thereon (£400); but not for the loss of profit on
the four melts (£1,767), because that was economic loss independent of the physical damage. I would, therefore,
allow the appeal and reduce the damages to £768.
EDMUND DAVIES LJ. The facts giving rise to this appeal have already been set out by Lord Denning MR.
Their very simplicity serves to highlight a problem regarding which differing judicial and academic views have
been expressed and which it is high time should be finally solved. The problem may be thus stated: where a
defendant who owes a duty of care to the plaintiff breaches that duty and, as both a direct and a reasonably
foreseeable result of that injury, the plaintiff suffers only economic loss, is he entitled to recover damages for that
loss?
In expressing in this way the question which now arises for determination, I have sought to strip away those
accretions which would otherwise obscure the basic issue involved. Let me explain. We are not here concerned to
enquire whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs or whether they breached it, for these matters
are admitted. Nor need we delay to consider whether as a direct and reasonably foreseeable result of the
defendants’ negligence any harm was sustained by the 564 plaintiffs, for a ‘melt’ valued at £368 was admittedly
ruined and the defendants concede their liability to make that loss good. But what is in issue is whether the
defendants must make good (a) the £400 loss of profit resulting from that material being spoilt and (b) the £1,767
further loss of profit caused by the inability to put four more ‘melts’ through the furnace before power was
restored. As to (a), the defendants, while making no unqualified admission, virtually accept their liability, on the
ground that the £400 loss was a direct consequence of the physical damage caused to the material in the furnace.
But they reject liability in respect of (b), not because it was any the less a direct and reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the defendant’s negligence than was the £400, but on the ground that it was unrelated to any
physical damage and that economic loss not anchored to and resulting from physical harm to person or property is
not recoverable under our law as damages for negligence.
In my respectful judgment, however it may formerly have been regarded, the law is today otherwise. I am
conscious of the boldness involved in expressing this view, particularly after studying such learned dissertations as
that of Professor Atiyah on ‘Negligence and Economic Loss’ c, where the relevant cases are cited. I recognise that
proof of the necessary linkage between negligent acts and purely economic consequences may be hard to forge. I
accept, too, that if economic loss of itself confers a right of action this may spell disaster for the negligent party.
But this may equally be the outcome where physical damage alone is sustained, or where physical damage leads
directly to economic loss. Nevertheless, when this occurs it was accepted in SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J
Whittall & Son Ltd that compensation is recoverable for both types of damage. It follows that this must be
regardless of whether the injury (physical or economic, or a mixture of both) is immense or puny, diffused over a
wide area or narrowly localised, provided only that the requirements as to forseeability and directness are fulfilled.
I therefore find myself unable to accept as factors determinant of legal principle those considerations of policy
canvassed in the concluding passages of the judgment just delivered by Lord Denning MR.
________________________________________
c (1967) 83 LQR 248
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In particular, I have to say that I derive no assistance by considering the position of statutory undertakers. To
take the very first case cited by Lord Denning MR, Atkinson v Newcastle & Gateshead Waterworks Co, Lord
Cairns LC there stressed ((1877) 2 Ex D at 448) that liability ‘must, to a great extent, depend on the purview of the
legislature in the particular statute, and the language which they have there employed’. As the Waterworks
Clauses Act 1847 provided for the imposition of a monetary penalty for neglect of the undertakers’ duty (inter alia)
to keep their pipes charged with water at a sufficient pressure and to allow all persons to use it for extinguishing
fires, the court held that the inference was that no right of action was conferred. Wright J adopted the same
approach in Clegg, Parkinson and Co v Earby Gas Co although Wills J based his decision on the wider ground
that ([1896] 1 QB at 594, 595)—

‘… where there is an obligation created by statute to do something for the benefit of the public generally
or of such a large body of persons that they can only be dealt with practically, en masse, as it were, and
where the failure to comply with the statutory obligation is liable to affect all such persons in the like
manner, though not necessarily in the same degree; there is no separate right of action to every person
injured, by breach of the obligation, in no other manner than the rest of the public.’
565

In Stevens v Aldershot Gas, Water and District Lighting Co, Macnaghten J simply held ((1932) 31 LGR at 51, 102
LJKB at 15) that:

‘Where a statutory duty is imposed and where, in consequence, an individual has suffered loss and a
question arises whether he can claim damages at common law or must proceed under the statute, the
decision must be that his remedy lies under the statute.’

He accordingly held that the recovery of the penalty provided by the relevant statute was the only remedy. But the
refusal of compensation in these cases in no way turned on the nature of the injury sustained by the complaining
party. Atkinson’s house was destroyed by fire, so there was physical damage in plenty; Clegg ‘sustained damage
to the amount of £50 by reason of the supply of gas having been insufficient and impure’, the nature of the damage
being unstated, but the action was one brought not in tort but for alleged breach of contract to supply gas
continuously as required by the plaintiffs and in accordance with a local gas order; while in Stevens’ case the
plaintiff hairdresser alleged that, as a result of an electric transformer not working properly, the apparatus in her
salon was thrown out of action, her assistants were unable to work, her business takings were reduced, and she
claimed damages both under statute and in negligence for loss of earnings. The observations of Lord Cairns LC in
Atkinson’s case ((1877) 2 Ex D at 445), to which Lord Denning MR has drawn special attention, had reference to
the non-performance of a statutory duty by a water undertaking as a consequence of which ‘any number of
householders might happen to have their houses burnt down’. But there is ample authority for the proposition that
negligence in the performance of statutory duties can create a cause of action (Geddis v Bann Reservoir
Proprietors ((1878) 3 App Cas 430 at 455) per Lord Blackburn) and as in the remaining cases referred to by Lord
Denning MR only physical damage to person or property was sustained, the legal position had the damage been
economic only simply did not arise for consideration.
For my part, I cannot see why the £400 loss of profit here sustained should be recoverable and not the £1,767.
It is common ground that both types of loss were equally foreseeable and equally direct consequences of the
defendants’ admitted negligence, and the only distinction drawn is that the former figure represents the profit lost
as a result of the physical damage done to the material in the furnace at the time when the power was cut off. But
what has that purely fortuitous fact to do with legal principle? In my judgment, nothing, and I would seek no
stronger support for my answer than the following passage from the judgment of Lord Denning MR himself in
SCM v Whittall ([1970] 3 All ER at 248,[1971] 1 QB at 342):

‘Damage was done to many factories by the cutting-off of the electricity supply. Those who had a stand-
by system would not suffer loss. But all others would suffer loss of production and loss of profit. This
could be reasonably foreseen. Some of the factories may have suffered material damage as well. But that
should not give them a special claim. Either all who suffered loss of profit should get damages for it, or
none of them should. It should not depend on the chance whether material damage was done as well.’

Nevertheless, Lord Denning MR went on to point out ([1970] 3 All ER at 250,[1971] 1 QB at 344) that:

‘In actions of negligence, when the plaintiff has suffered no damage to his person or property, but has
only sustained economic loss, the law does not usually permit him to recover that loss. The reason lies in
public policy.’
566

It should, however, be stressed that, as in that case physical damage was sustained, observations regarding the
position where the damage is economic only, while clearly commanding the greatest respect, are to be regarded as
strictly obiter.
Professor Heuston has observedd that: ‘… the reluctance to grant a remedy for the careless invasion of
financial or pecuniary interests is long-standing, deep-rooted and not unreasonable’, an observation cited with
approval by Barrowclough CJ in Furniss v Fitchett ([1958] NZLR 396 at 401). The starting point usually taken is
the judgment of Blackburn J in Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co where the defendants had laid a defective water
pipe under a turnpike road. The resulting leakage of water hampered the contractor’s work of tunnelling under the
road and greatly reduced his profit on a contract with the road owners. Holding that this loss gave him no cause of
action, Blackburn J said ((1875) LR 10 QB at 457,[1874–80] All ER Rep at 223):
________________________________________
d In Salmond on Torts (15th Edn, 1969) at p 262
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

‘… the objection is technical and against the merits, and we should be glad to avoid giving it effect. But
if we did so, we should establish an authority for saying that, in such a case as that of Fletcher v. Rylands
[(1866) LR 1 Wx 265, affd sub nom Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330,[1861–73] All ER Rep 1] the
defendant would be liable, not only to an action by the owner of the drowned mine, and by such of his
workmen as had their tools or clothes destroyed, but also to an action by every workman and person
employed in the mine, who in consequence of its stoppage made less wages than he would otherwise have
done. And many similar cases to which this would apply might be suggested. It may be said that it is just
that all such persons should have compensation for such a loss, and that, if the law does not give them
redress, it is imperfect. Perhaps it may be so.’

Was Blackburn J there saying that damages could not be recovered if only pecuniary loss flowed from a
negligent act? Or was he saying that the pecuniary loss sustained by the plaintiff in that case, and such pecuniary
loss as would arise in the hypothetical cases he gave, was not recoverable because it was too remote? I believe that
Blackburn J was saying no more than the latter, and that this is demonstrated by the fact that he continued his
judgment in this way ((1875) LR 10 QB at 457,[1874–80] All ER Rep at 223):

‘But, as was pointed out by Coleridge, J., in Lumley v. Gye [(1853) 2 E & B 216 and 252,[1843–60] All
ER Rep 208 at 221], Courts of justice should not “allow themselves, in the pursuit of perfectly complete
remedies for all wrongful acts, to transgress the bounds, which our law, in a wise consciousness as I
conceive of its limited powers, has imposed on itself, of redressing only the proximate and direct
consequences of wrongful acts.” In this we quite agree.’
 Despite the frequency with which Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co is cited as authority for the proposition
that pecuniary loss, without more, can never sustain an action for negligence, I respectfully venture to think that
Blackburn J was there laying down no such rule. Had he intended to do so when, two years later as Lord
Blackburn, he was a party to the decision in Simpson v Thomson, this fact would surely have emerged when he
concurred ((1877) 3 App Cas at 292 et seq) in the dismissal of underwriters’ claim for recoupment of the sum they
had paid for a total loss.
To revert to SCM v Whittall, Lord Denning MR said ([1970] 3 All ER at 251,[1971] 1 QB at 345):
567

‘I must not be taken, however, as saying that economic loss is always too remote. There are some
exceptional cases when it is the immediate consequence of the negligence and is recoverable accordingly.’

Lord Denning MR went on to give examples of such ‘exceptional cases’. But before turning to them, reference
should be made to Société Anonyme de Remorquage à Hélice v Bennetts. There a steam tug belonging to the
plaintiffs was engaged under a towage contract in towing a ship. That ship was struck by a steamship belonging to
the defendant owing to the negligence of his servants, but no damage was caused to the tug. The plaintiffs sued to
recover as damages the towage remuneration they would have earned if they had completed the towage contract.
Founding himself on Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co Hamilton J held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that
they had sustained ‘damage recognised by law’. That case needs to be contrasted with Morrison Steamship Co Ltd
v Greystoke Castle, where cargo owners sustained purely financial loss as the result of a collision between the
vessel carrying their cargo and another, and were held entitled to recover from the owners of the colliding ship the
general average contribution which they had become liable to pay. Lord Roche there said ([1946] 2 All ER at 699,
700,[1947] AC at 279):

‘There remains for consideration the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondents had no
direct right of suit because it was said that: (a) their cargo sustained no material or physical damage and an
expense occasioned to them after the collision in connection with a contract was not actionable … As to the
first branch of this contention, I would observe that, in my judgment, if the expense is occasioned by the
collision and if it is the expense in whole or in part of the cargo owners … then no authority was cited to
support the proposition that whether by land or by sea physical or material damage is necessary to support a
cause of action in a case like this. I do not regard La Sociétaé Anonyme de Remorquage v. Bennetts, which
was cited, as any such authority. If it was correctly decided, as to which I express no opinion, I think it must
depend on a view that one vessel (A) does not owe to the tug which is towing vessel (B) any duty not
negligently to collide with (B).’

Lord Roche’s observation that ‘no authority was cited’, etc is significant as indicating that he did not regard
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co as supporting the proposition he was rejecting; there is no question of that great
commercial judge having momentarily overlooked that decision, for it was the foundation of Hamilton J’s
judgment in the Société Anonyme case and had clearly been cited to their Lordships (see Lord Simonds ([1946] 2
All ER at 715,[1947] AC at 306)). Lord Roche went on ([1946] 2 All ER at 700,[1947] AC at 280) to give an
illustration which is worthy of being recalled:

‘… if two lorries A and B are meeting one another on the road, I cannot bring myself to doubt that the
driver of lorry A owes a duty to both the owner of lorry B and to the owner of goods then carried in lorry B.
Those owners are engaged in a common adventure with or by means of lorry B, and if lorry A is negligently
driven and damages lorry B so severely that, while no damage is done to the goods in it, the goods have to
be unloaded for the repair of the lorry and then reloaded or carried forward in some other way and the
consequent expense is (by reason of his contract or otherwise) the expense of the owner of the goods, then,
in my judgment, the owner of the goods has a direct cause of action to recover such expense.’
568

In SCM v Whittall Lord Denning MR said ([1970] 3 All ER at 252,[1971] 1 QB at 346) of this illustration that the
goods owner’s economic loss ‘is analogous to physical damage, because the goods themselves had to be
unloaded’, but I have to say that in my respectful judgment this will not do, that the suggested analogy is
misleading, and that Lord Roche was illustrating the proposition he favoured that purely economic loss can be per
se sufficient in negligence.
In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd, one of those ‘exceptional cases’ referred to by Lord
Denning MR in SCM v Whittall and a landmark in the branch of the law with which we are here concerned, Lord
Devlin referring to Morrison Steamship Co Ltd v Greystoke Castle said ([1963] 2 All ER at 603,[1964] AC at
518):

‘Their lordships did not in that case lay down any general principle about liability for financial loss in
the absence of physical damage; but the case itself makes it impossible to argue that there is any general rule
showing that such loss is of its nature irrecoverable.’
This is increasingly recognised as being the legal position, and ample illustrations of this are available. Thus in
Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp Salmon LJ said ([1970] 1 All ER at 1027,[1970] 2 QB at
278):

‘So far … as the law of negligence relating to civil actions is concerned, the existence of a duty to take
reasonable care no longer depends on whether it is physical injury or financial loss which can reasonably be
foreseen as a result of a failure to take such care.’

And in Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council ([1972] 1 All ER 462 at 481,[1972] 1 QB 373 at 404) Sachs
LJ said that ‘to pose the question is it physical damage or economic damage is to adopt a fallacious approach’.
Having considered the intrinsic nature of the problem presented in this appeal, and having consulted the
relevant authorities, my conclusion, as already indicated, is that an action lies in negligence for damages in respect
of purely economic loss, provided that it was a reasonably foreseeable and direct consequence of failure in a duty
of care. The application of such a rule can undoubtedly give rise to difficulties in certain sets of circumstances, but
so can the suggested rule that economic loss may be recovered provided it is directly consequential on physical
damage. Many alarming situations were conjured up in the course of counsel’s arguments before us. In their way,
they were reminiscent of those formerly advanced against awarding damages for nervous shock; for example, the
risk of fictitious claims and expensive litigation, the difficulty of disproving the alleged cause and effect, and the
impossibility of expressing such a claim in financial terms. But I suspect that they (like the illustrations furnished
by Lord Penzance in Simpson & Co v Thomson ((1877) 3 App Cas 279 at 289 et seq)) would for the most part be
resolved either on the ground that no duty of care was owed to the injured party or that the damages sued for were
irrecoverable not because they were simply financial but because they were too remote.
The much misunderstood decision in Electrochrome Ltd v Welsh Plastics Ltd affords a modern illustration of
this point. B’s servant negligently damaged a fire-hydrant belonging to C. A alleged that, as a result, the water
supply to his factory was thereby interrupted, thereby causing him to suspend work and, in consequence, to suffer
569 considerable financial loss. But, after being exhaustively scrutinised, the alleged loss of productivity was
simply never established. The court had no difficulty in detecting the element of considerable exaggeration. At
the end of the day, the claim was reduced to a mere £29 10s representing the value of the diminished water supply
to A’s factory (which C had contracted to provide) until the damage was repaired (See [1968] 2 All ER at 207).
This Geoffrey Lane J dismissed on the ground that B’s duty of care was owed only to C, the owner of the hydrant,
and not to A. However unconsciously, he was thereby echoing Denning LJ who, in Candler v Crane, Christmas &
Co, blazing the trial which was to lead to Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd, said ([1951] 1 All ER
at 433,[1951] 2 KB at 179):

‘I can understand that in some cases of financial loss there may not be a sufficiently proximate
relationship to give rise to a duty of care, but if once the duty exists I cannot think that liability depends on
the nature of the damage.’

That approach to the clear facts of the present case has, if I may say so, the virtues of good sense and of
fairness. Here too the line has to be drawn where ‘in the particular case the good sense of the judge decides’. In
this connection I respectfully adopt the observations of Professor Goodhart ((1971) 87 LQR at 10) that:

‘… the fact that the judge has good sense does not explain the grounds on which he has based his
decision. It is submitted that the first of these grounds is that the court must decide whether a reasonable
person in the position of the defendant ought to have foreseen that an accident could arise if he failed to take
care. The second is, could a reasonable person foresee that damage of the nature which the plaintiff suffered
might arise from his act? The third is, would a reasonable person in these circumstances have taken
reasonable care to avoid the harmful consequences? In Liesbosch Dredger v. Edison S. S. ought the
defendant to have foreseen that if the dredger was sunk this might lead to the plaintiff’s failure to perform
his contract as he did not have sufficient resources to hire another dredger? Both these consequences were
foreseeable, but it would not have been reasonable to expect the defendants to guard against the loss caused
by the impecunious condition of the plaintiffs by insuring against such a consequence.’

Such good sense as I possess guides me to the conclusion that it would be wrong to draw in the present case any
distinction between the first, spoilt ‘melt’ and the four ‘melts’ which, but for the defendants’ negligence, would
admittedly have followed it. That is simply another way of saying that I consider the plaintiffs are entitled to
recover the entirety of the financial loss they sustained.
I should perhaps again stress that we are here dealing with economic loss which was both reasonably
foreseeable and a direct consequence of the defendants’ negligent act. What the position should or would be were
the latter feature lacking (as in Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute) is not our present
concern. By stressing this point one is not reviving the distinction between direct and indirect consequences which
is generally thought to have been laid at rest by the Wagon Mound (No 1), for, in the words of Professor Atiyah
((1967) 83 LQR at 263), that case—

‘was solely concerned with the question whether the directness of the damage is a sufficient test of
liability … In other words The Wagon Mound merely decides 570 that a plaintiff cannot recover for
 unforeseeable consequences even if they are direct; it does not decide that a plaintiff can always recover for
foreseeable consequences even if they are indirect.’
Both directness and foreseeability being here established, it follows that I regard the learned trial judge as
having rightly awarded the sum of £2,535.
Having regard to the route which has led me to this conclusion, it is not necessary for me to express any
concluded view regarding the topic of ‘parasitic damages’. I content myself with saying that, whatever be the
scope of such a concept in other and wholly different branches of the law, I am at present not satisfied that it can
be invoked in cases of the type now under consideration.
I would be for dismissing the appeal.

LAWTON LJ. This appeal raises neatly a question which has been asked from time to time since Blackburn J
delivered his well-known judgment in Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co and more frequently since the decision in
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd, namely, whether a plaintiff can recover from a defendant, proved
or admitted to have been negligent, foreseeable financial damage which is nor consequential on foreseeable
physical injury or damage to property. Any doubts there may have been about the recovery of such consequential
financial damage were settled by this court in SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall & Son Ltd. In my
judgment the answer to this question is that such financial damage cannot be recovered save when it is the
immediate consequence of a breach of duty to safeguard the plaintiff from that kind of loss.
This is not the first time a negligent workman has cut an electric supply cable nor the first claim for damages
arising out of such an incident. When in practice at the Bar I myself advised in a number of such cases. Most
practitioners acting for insurers under the so-called ‘public liability’ types of policy will have had similar
professional experiences; if not with electrical supply, with gas and water mains. Negligent interference with such
services is one of the facts of life and can cause a lot of damage, both physical and financial. Water conduits have
been with us for centuries; gas mains for nearly a century and a half; electricity supply cables for about
threequarters of a century; but there is not a single case in the English law reports which is an authority for the
proposition that mere financial loss resulting from negligent interruption of such services is recoverable. Why?
Many lawyers would be likely to answer that ever since Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co such damages have
been irrecoverable. Edmund Davies LJ has just stated that he doubts whether Blackburn J laid down any such rule.
Knowing that he had these doubts, I have re-read Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co. The claim was in negligence.
The declaration was as follows ((1875) LR 10 QB at 453):

‘… that defendants, being a water company, so negligently laid down under a certain turnpike road their
pipes for supplying water to a district, and so negligently kept and maintained the pipes in such insufficient
repair, and in such imperfect and leaky condition, that, while the plaintiff was lawfully constructing for
reward to the plaintiff a tunnel across the turnpike road, and was lawfully using the road for such purpose,
the pipes leaked, and large quantities of water flowed into the road, and upon the plaintiff’s workings, and
flooded them, and plaintiff was hindered and delayed in the work, and suffered great loss.’
571

The declaration raised precisely the problem which has to be solved in this case; Blackburn J’s answer was in these
words ((1875) LR 10 QB at 458,[1874–80] All ER Rep at 224):

‘In the present case there is no pretence for saying that the defendants were malicious or had any
intention to injure anyone. They were, at most, guilty of a neglect of duty, which occasioned injury to the
property of Knight, but which did not injure any property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim is to recover
the damage which he has sustained by his contract with Knight becoming less profitable, or, it may be, a
losing contract, in consequence of this injury to Knight’s property. We think this does not give him any
right of action.’

Earlier in his judgment he had said ((1875) LR 10 QB at 457, 458,[1874–80] All ER Rep at 223): ‘No authority in
favour of the plaintiff’s right to sue was cited, and, as far as our knowledge goes, there was none that could have
been cited.’ There is still no authority directly in point today. Blackburn J’s judgment has been cited with
approval and followed many times; the judgment of Hamilton J in Société Anonyme de Remorquage à Hélice v
Bennetts ([1911] 1 KB 243 at 248) and of Widgery J in Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute
([1965] 3 All ER at 570,[1966] 1 QB at 588) are instances. For nearly 100 years now contractors and insurers
have negotiated policies and premiums have been calculated on the assumption that Blackburn J’s judgment is a
correct statement of the law; and those affected financially by the acts of negligent contractors have been advised
time and time again that mere financial loss is irrecoverable.
It was argued that the law has developed since 1875, albeit the development was unnoticed by Hamilton and
Widgery JJ. Has it?
Counsel for the plaintiffs based his argument about the law developing beyond the limits delineated by
Blackburn J on three planks: first, what Lord Esher MR had said in Re London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Co
& Gower’s Walk Schools Trustees; secondly, what Buckley LJ had said in Horton v Colwyn Bay and Colwyn
Urban Council ([1908] 1 KB 327 at 341), and, thirdly, what the House of Lords had decided in Morrison
Steamship Co Ltd v Greystoke Castle. Both Lord Esher MR and Buckley LJ made general statements about what
kinds of damage can be recovered; and if those statements are to be followed without any qualification, mere
financial loss is recoverable in an action for negligence. It is pertinent to note, however, that both cases were
concerned with the assessment of compensation under statute and in each case the court had to decide how to
construe and apply the statute. Clearly both statements were obiter and, in my judgment, oversimplifications. If in
the Greystoke Castle case, the House of Lords overruled Cattle v Stockton Waterworks, it did so by an unobserved
flanking movement, not by a direct assault. The two leading counsel, Sir William McNair KC and Sir Robert
Aske KC, do not seem to have appreciated that a bastion of the common law was in danger of falling, as neither
seems to have cited Cattle v Stockton Waterworks. The only one of the Law Lords who did was Lord Simonds,
who clearly did so with respect and approval; his speech, however, was a dissenting one. Lord Roche commented
on Hamilton J’s judgment in Société Anonyme de Remorquage à Hélice v Bennetts. He sought to explain it on the
ground that the unsuccessful plaintiff had not proved a breach of duty. Had he intended to disapprove a long-
standing judgment of such an eminent common lawyer as Blackburn J, I would have expected him to have done so
in terms. The House did, however, by a majority, adjudge that the cargo owners had a direct claim against the
owners of the colliding ship for a proportion 572 of the general average contribution. The case was argued and
speeches delivered on the basis that the House was considering a problem of maritime law. I would not have the
temerity to express any opinion as to the extent to which maritime law and the common law differ as to the kinds
of damage which are recoverable; but having regard to their differing historical developments, it would not
surprise me if there were divergences. The policy governing their developments may well have been different.
What I am satisfied about is that the House of Lords in the Greystoke Castle case cannot be said to have overruled
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co.
The differences which undoubtedly exist between what damage can be recovered in one type of case and what
in another cannot be reconciled on any logical basis. I agree with Lord Denning MR that such differences have
arisen because of the policy of the law. Maybe there should be one policy for all cases; the enunciation of such a
policy is not, in my judgment, a task for this court.
Counsel for the plaintiffs appreciated that his broad submission about recovering financial loss might fall at
the hurdle presented by Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co. As an alternative submission he sought to rely on the
so-called concept of parasitic damages. Those who support this concept argue that once physical injury or damage
to property has been proved all foreseeable financial loss consequent on the wrongdoing is recoverable; in some
way it becomes hitched on to, or attached, to the physical injury or damage to property. The cases he cited in
support were, with two exceptions, far removed from actions for negligence. The two exceptions were Lampert v
Eastern National Omnibus Co Ltd and Seaway Hotels Ltd v Cragg (Canada) Ltd and Consumers Gas Co. In the
first, Hilbery J adjudged that the facts relied on as the basis of the claim for financial loss had not been proved so
that the case cannot be an authority for this concept. In the second, doubts were expressed in SCM (United
Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall & Son Ltd by both Lord Denning MR and Buckley LJ whether the mere financial loss
would have been recoverable under an English judgment. Thurston v Charles was a claim for damages for the
detention and conversion of a letter. In Jackson v Watson & Sons the successful claim was for damages for a
breach of warranty on the sale of a tin of salmon which had poisoned the purchaser’s wife whereby he had lost the
benefit of her services through her death. In Griffith v Richard Clay & Sons Ltd the plaintiff claimed an injunction
and damages for the obstruction by the defendants of his ancient lights. He was awarded damages but refused an
injunction, a fact which may explain why the basis for the award of damages was as broad as it was. I do not find
it necessary to make a detailed examination of these cases because, in my judgment, the comment which was made
by the editor of Mayne and McGregore correctly and neatly sums up the position. After referring to Buckley LJ’s
dictum in Horton’s case on which I have already commented, he wrote:
________________________________________
e See McGregor on Damages (13th Edn, 1972), p 114
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

‘This is an oversimplification and there is no necessity in principle to adopt such a sweeping statement.
Each tort is different and, since the matter is one of policy, each can be decided in a different way from the
next one.’

In my judgment the rule enunciated in 1875 by Blackburn J is the correct one to apply in negligence cases.
573
When this principle is applied to the facts of this case it produces the result referred to by Lord Denning MR
in his judgment. I too would allow the appeal and reduce the damages to £768.

Appeal allowed.

Solicitors: Allan Jay & Co agents for William F Hatton & Co, Dudley (for the defendants); Herbert Oppenheimer,
Nathan & Vandyk (for the plaintiffs).

L J Kovats Esq Barrister.