The cracked building was regarded as property damage and so compensation was awarded. See Murphy.

The plaintiff’s takeover bid was informed by the annual audit of the company’s accounts. They were faulty and he lost profit.

The accounts were not prepared for the plaintiff or for the purpose of informing investment decisions. No duty of care was owed.

An advertising agency lost money when it relied on a negligently compiled bank reference about a client.

This case founded the tort of negligent misstatement, but there was no liability here owing to the disclaimer. Duty of care was determined by finding the special relationship.

Concerned losses incurred by Names in the Lloyd’s insurance market due to negligent agents’ investment decisions.

Assumption of responsibility for the provision of services can be the basis of a duty of care for negligent misstatement, even when there is also a contractual relationship.

The plaintiff’s takeover bid was informed by draft accounts, prepared (not for him) at short notice.

No duty of care was owed. The court set out six key factors for consideration in determining duty.

The faulty foundations on the plaintiff’s house led to cracks and a loss in profit when he sold it after ten years.

Anns was overruled. This type of damage was pure economic loss and not recoverable. The only remedy would have been in contract.

In a valuation conducted for mortgage purposes, the defendant negligently undervalued the plaintiff’s home, so he incurred extra expenditure for repairs.

There was proximity between the parties and foreseeability, so in this professional context there should be a duty of care. The disclaimer was invalid according to the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977.

The loss of power caused by cutting the cable to a factory affected the operation of three furnaces melting steel.

Compensation was permitted for the furnace containing the damaged ore but not for loss of profits linked to empty furnaces. Illustrates the difference between property damage and pure economic loss.

The plaintiff was the subject of a negligent employment reference written by his former employer.

A duty of care for a negligent misstatement to a third party can be owed to the subject of a negligent misstatement, when there has been an assumption of responsibility.

Disappointed beneficiaries sued a solicitor who had been negligent in executing a will.

Although there had not been reliance by the plaintiffs in the Hedley Byrne sense, there was a duty of care based upon foreseeability, proximity, and an assumption of responsibility.