Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The two causes of action will be considered in succession, first the one for negligence and second that for fraud. (1) We think the evidence supports a finding that the audit was negligently made, though in so saying we put aside for the moment the question whether negligence, even if it existed, was a wrong to the plaintiff.
But while we regard the difference between fraud on the one hand and mere negligence, however gross, on the other as a difference in kind, we regard the difference between negligence and gross negligence as merely one of degree. English lawyers have always had a healthy disrespect for the latter distinction. In Hinton v.
See also the decision of Sir Douglas Frank Q.C., sitting as a High Court judge, in McNally v. Welltrade International Ltd. [1978] I.R.L.R. 497 . In each of these cases the judge held that the basis for the assessment of damages under section 2(1) of the Act of 1967 is that established in Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd This is also the effect of ...
An appellate court may also decide on an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case, may distinguish them on the facts. [5] [6] Where there are several members of a court deciding a case, there may be one or more judgments given (or reported).
To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3] If the same result would have occurred without negligence by the attorney, no cause of action will be permitted. "But for" or actual causation can ...
The doctor's reasonable decision to provide the standard treatment was therefore not the relevant cause of the brain damage because the claimant would not have been injected "but for" the defendant's negligence. Thus, in deciding between sequential contributions to the final result, the court must decide which is the more substantial contribution.
The Supreme Court of Canada established a similar test in the context of assessing damages for pure economic loss owing to negligence derived from Anns which consists of a two step examination of the existence of a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties and public policy considerations; however, the Canadian test is more ...
Similarly, fraud may serve as a basis for a court to invoke its equitable jurisdiction. The remedies for fraud may include rescission (i.e., reversal) of a fraudulently obtained agreement or transaction, the recovery of a monetary award to compensate for the harm caused, punitive damages to punish or deter the misconduct, and possibly others. [6]