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

First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the
person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of
proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of
the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the
latter – in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the
first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether
there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit
the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the
damages to which a breach of it may give rise.
The policy considerations (the second stage of the test) might include
apprehension about the class of persons to whom a duty of care
would be owed (as, for example, in Hedley Byrne & Company
Limited v Heller & Partners Limited [1964] AC 465 (HL(E)) where
concern was expressed about the number of persons who might rely
on the tortfeasor’s misrepresentation); or about the nature of the loss
suffered (whether purely economic or otherwise); or, about whether a
private law duty of care should be recognized in a case where the
parties’ relationship was governed in the public sphere by statute.
Lord Wilberforce and the other members of the panel of the House of
Lords, ultimately, concluded that the local authority owed a duty of
care to the tenants.
29