THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

judgment. This is most unfortunate as the present case concerns an
extremely difficult area of law.
The difficulty encountered by the courts (not only in this country but in
other common law jurisdictions as well) in making any new
pronouncement when confronted with a new factual situation is well
stated by Lord Roskill in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2
AC 605 (at p. 628):
I agree with your Lordships that it has now to be accepted that there is no
simple formula or touchstone to which recourse can be had in order to
provide in every case a ready answer to the question, given certain facts,
the law will or will not impose liability for negligence or in cases where
such liability can be shown to exist, determine the extent of that liability.
Be that as it may, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
defendants that (1) the delay in obtaining the CFOs was not due to
any want of care or diligence on the part of the defendants as the
architects of the project; and (2) in any event, the defendants as the
architects of the project, owe no duty of care to the plaintiffs (as
purchasers of the industrial units) in relation to the obtaining of the
16