← All Authorities
United Kingdom duty of careprofessional negligencepure economic loss

Steel v NRAM Ltd

[2018] UKSC 13
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2018
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A solicitor owes no concurrent duty of care to the opposing party absent clear assumption of responsibility established on the facts.

Key Principle

A solicitor who owes a duty to their client does not ordinarily owe a concurrent duty to the other party to the transaction; assumption of responsibility must be established by the facts.

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Steel v NRAM Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Steel v NRAM Ltd