Howes v Crombie [2001] ScotCS 161 (26 June 2001)

Howes v Crombie [2001] ScotCS 161 (26 June 2001)

The defender did not owe a duty of care to the pursuer because there was insufficient proximity; he lacked knowledge of the sale transaction, the letter was not intended for the pursuer's reliance, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability given the circumstances.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 161
Parties
Pursuer: Jacqueline Howes; Defender: Alan S. Crombie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Duty of Care
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor granted; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Misstatement, Proximity, Economic Loss
Tort Professional Negligence Duty of Care Negligent Misstatement Proximity Economic Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Howes

Pursuer

Alan S. Crombie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Duty of Care

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender owed a duty of care to the pursuer in issuing a letter confirming structural integrity to the seller
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the defender and pursuer was sufficiently proximate to impose liability for negligent misstatement

Ratio Decidendi

The defender did not owe a duty of care to the pursuer because there was insufficient proximity; he lacked knowledge of the sale transaction, the letter was not intended for the pursuer's reliance, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose liability given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor granted; action dismissed.

Orders

  • No duty of care found; defender absolved from liability.