The case that created professional negligence as English law now understands it. Before 1964, giving someone bad advice, however carelessly, generally did not expose you to a claim unless there was a contract between you. Hedley Byrne changed that permanently, and then, in one of the great ironies of English case law, the defendant who lost on principle won on the facts.
On this page
Full name: Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
Citation: [1964] AC 465; [1963] UKHL 4
Court: House of Lords (Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Devlin, Lord Pearce)
Judgment: 28 May 1963
Subject: Whether a negligent, non-contractual misstatement can found liability in tort for resulting pure economic loss
Result: Appeal dismissed. A duty of care for negligent misstatement was held, for the first time, capable of existing in the absence of a contract, but on the facts, an effective disclaimer of responsibility meant no duty arose, and Hedley Byrne recovered nothing.
The Facts
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd was an advertising agency. It was asked by a client, Easipower Ltd, to place advertising on credit terms, committing Hedley Byrne to substantial personal liability to third-party media owners if Easipower failed to pay. Before agreeing, Hedley Byrne sensibly sought a credit reference on Easipower. It asked its own bank, National Provincial Bank, to make enquiries of Easipower's bankers, Heller & Partners Ltd.
Heller & Partners gave two favourable references, describing Easipower as "a respectably constituted company, considered good for its ordinary business engagements." Relying on these references, Hedley Byrne extended substantial credit to Easipower. Easipower subsequently went into liquidation, and Hedley Byrne lost approximately £17,000, a very substantial sum at the time. Hedley Byrne sued Heller & Partners in negligence, alleging the references had been given carelessly.
Procedural History
- Queen’s Bench Division (McNair J): held that Heller & Partners owed no duty of care to Hedley Byrne, applying the then-orthodox rule from Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 (Denning LJ dissenting) that no duty of care existed for negligent statements absent a contractual or fiduciary relationship.
- Court of Appeal [1962] 1 QB 396: dismissed the appeal on the same basis, feeling bound by Candler v Crane, Christmas.
- House of Lords [1964] AC 465: unanimously held that a duty of care for negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss can exist without a contract, overruling the reasoning in Candler and adopting the dissenting analysis of Denning LJ in that case. However, the House unanimously held that on the facts, the disclaimer of responsibility was effective, and Heller & Partners owed no duty of care to Hedley Byrne after all. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and Hedley Byrne recovered nothing, despite winning the point of principle for which the case is remembered.
The Issues
- Can a negligent, but honest, misstatement give rise to liability in tort for resulting pure economic loss, in the absence of any contractual relationship between the parties?
- If so, what circumstances give rise to the necessary duty of care, is it enough that reliance was foreseeable, or is something more required?
- Did the disclaimer of responsibility attached to Heller & Partners’ references prevent a duty of care from arising, even if the general principle would otherwise apply?
The Ratio: The Special Relationship and Assumption of Responsibility
The House of Lords, particularly in Lord Devlin's speech, explained this new duty through the organising concept of assumption of responsibility: where a person possessing special skill undertakes, expressly or by conduct, to apply that skill for the assistance of another who relies on it, a duty of care arises to exercise reasonable care in doing so. This was a genuinely significant development, because English law had previously been reluctant to allow recovery in tort for pure economic loss (loss not flowing from physical damage to person or property) caused merely by careless words rather than careless acts.
Why the Claim Still Failed
Having established the general principle, the House of Lords turned to the specific facts and unanimously concluded that no duty of care in fact arose, because Heller & Partners had expressly disclaimed responsibility for the accuracy of the references. The words "without responsibility on the part of this bank or its officials" were held to be an effective and clear disclaimer, negating what would otherwise have been an assumption of responsibility. A party who makes clear, at the time a statement is given, that they accept no responsibility for its accuracy cannot be taken to have assumed the responsibility the special relationship doctrine otherwise requires.
The practical result is one of the most instructive features of the case for students and practitioners alike: Hedley Byrne won the argument that changed the law and lost the case that tested it. The general principle survived and became foundational; the specific claim failed entirely.
Authorities Considered and Later Refinement
Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164
The Court of Appeal decision the House of Lords effectively overruled. The majority had held that accountants owed no duty of care in tort to a third party who relied on negligently prepared accounts, absent a contractual or fiduciary relationship. Denning LJ's powerful dissent, arguing that a duty should exist wherever a professional person gives information or advice to another whom they know will rely on it, was expressly vindicated and adopted by the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
The foundational authority for the modern law of negligence generally, establishing the neighbour principle. Hedley Byrne extended negligence liability into the previously resistant territory of pure economic loss caused by words, a distinct and more cautious extension than the physical damage context Donoghue addressed.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Decided over two decades later, Caparo refined when a duty of care for negligent misstatement arises, adding the requirement that the maker of the statement must have known the statement would be communicated to the claimant, either specifically or as a member of an ascertainable class, in connection with a particular transaction or transactions of a particular kind, and that the claimant would be very likely to rely on it for that purpose. Caparo narrowed the practical scope of Hedley Byrne liability, particularly for auditors and accountants facing claims from parties beyond their immediate client, but did not disturb the foundational principle itself.
Relevance to Professional Negligence in Tax Matters
Hedley Byrne is the doctrinal foundation for any claim against an accountant or tax adviser whose negligent advice causes a client financial loss, whether or not a formal engagement letter or contract exists. In practice, most claims against accountants and tax advisers now proceed in both contract (breach of the retainer), and tort (breach of the Hedley Byrne duty) concurrently, because the tortious duty can sometimes support a more favourable limitation position, and can in principle extend, following Caparo’s refinement, to a third party the adviser knew would rely on the advice for a specific purpose, not only the adviser’s direct client.
Practitioner Application
Assessing a professional negligence claim against a tax adviser
- Check for disclaimers or scope limitations in the engagement letter or the specific advice given, and assess whether they are clear and prominent enough to negate assumption of responsibility, applying Hedley Byrne and testing any exclusion against the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
- Establish the special relationship elements: did the adviser hold themselves out as having relevant expertise, know the client would rely on the specific advice for a specific purpose, and was that reliance reasonable in the circumstances.
- Consider whether a third party beyond the direct client might also be owed a duty, applying Caparo’s refinement, where the adviser knew the advice would be relied on by a specific person or ascertainable class for a known transaction.
- Plead in both contract and tort where possible, since the tortious Hedley Byrne duty and the contractual retainer duty can have different limitation consequences and different available heads of loss.
Common mistakes
- Assuming a duty of care automatically exists wherever advice was given and relied upon: Hedley Byrne itself shows an otherwise-applicable duty can be negated by an effective disclaimer.
- Overlooking that Caparo, not Hedley Byrne alone, now supplies the operative test for whether a duty extends to a third party who was not the adviser's direct client.
- Treating the case as establishing that Hedley Byrne won its claim. It did not; it lost on the disclaimer despite winning the point of principle.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Hedley Byrne v Heller decide?
That a negligent, though honest, misstatement can give rise to liability for pure economic loss in tort, even without a contract, provided a special relationship exists: the maker has or holds themselves out as having relevant skill, knows or ought to know the recipient will rely on the statement, and it is reasonable for the recipient to do so.
Why did Hedley Byrne actually lose despite the House of Lords finding a duty of care existed?
Because the credit reference was expressly headed "without responsibility." The House of Lords held this disclaimer was effective to negate any assumption of responsibility, so no duty of care arose on the facts, even though the general principle established by the case would otherwise have applied.
How does Hedley Byrne apply to a professional negligence claim against an accountant?
It supplies the foundational duty of care: an accountant or tax adviser who gives advice professionally, knowing the client will rely on it, assumes a responsibility that can found liability in tort for resulting economic loss, independent of any contractual duty. This can affect the applicable limitation period and available heads of loss.
What is "assumption of responsibility" and why does it matter?
The organising concept the House of Lords used to explain why a duty of care could exist for pure economic loss caused by words. Where a professional assumes responsibility for advice given to a specific person for a known purpose, later cases such as Caparo Industries plc v Dickman have refined when that assumption exists, but Hedley Byrne remains the doctrinal starting point.