Professional negligence and tort of passing off
In this lesson, you'll learn how professional negligence differs from standard negligence and when you can actually be held liable for giving advice.
This lesson is part of a paid course
Buy the course to unlock every video lesson and the AI Tutor, plus mock exams with feedback on CIMA courses.
Already bought? Sign in
Ask the AI tutor anything about this lesson
It knows every lesson in the course — explanations, clarifications, practice questions.
In this lesson
- 0:00 Introduction to negligence and professional liability
- 0:45 Establishing special relationships in professional negligence
- 2:41 Hedley Byrne case and exclusion clauses
- 3:50 Auditor duty of care and scope of liability
- 5:02 ADT and BDO case study on takeover opinions
- 6:01 Caparo Industries v Dickman landmark decision
- 7:27 Tort of passing off explained
- 9:17 Exam question: Valenti non fit injuria vs contributory negligence
About this lesson
You'll explore the concept of special relationships—the crucial requirement that establishes duty of care in professional contexts—and see how courts have applied this through landmark cases like Hedley Byrne and Cooper Industries v Dickman. Understanding these boundaries is essential for your LW paper, as it determines who can sue professionals and under what circumstances. The lesson also covers professional negligence in auditing, where the rules are particularly strict. You'll discover that auditors owe a duty of care only to their client (the company), not to individual shareholders or the public, except in specific situations where a special relationship is established—such as when accounts are prepared specifically for a takeover. Real case examples show how audit partners can inadvertently create liability by giving professional opinions to third parties they know will rely on them. Finally, you'll learn about the tort of passing off, a related concept that protects business reputation and brand identity. This involves showing three elements: use of a similar name, likelihood of misleading the public, and resulting loss. The lesson uses the Rihanna v Topshop case to illustrate how courts assess genuine public confusion and what remedies are available, including injunctions and damages. You'll finish with an exam-standard question to test your understanding of how these principles apply in practice.
Duration: 12m
Transcript
Every lesson comes with a full searchable transcript - included with the course.
Get the Corporate and Business Law course
All 76 video lessons, an AI Tutor in every lesson and lifetime access.
Already bought? Sign in