“Concurrent liability in contract and tort possible; Hedley Byrne extends to services.”
Lloyd's Names (investors) sued their managing agents and members' agents for negligent underwriting that caused substantial losses. Some Names had direct contracts with agents, others did not. The question arose whether tort claims could proceed alongside or instead of contractual claims.
Whether a duty of care in tort can exist where there is also a contractual relationship, and whether the Hedley Byrne principle extends beyond advice to the provision of services involving economic loss.
The House of Lords held that concurrent liability in contract and tort was possible. A tortious duty of care could exist even where there was a contract, and the Hedley Byrne principle extended to services as well as advice where there was an assumption of responsibility.
This decision revolutionized professional negligence law by establishing concurrent liability and extending Hedley Byrne to services. It remains the leading authority on assumption of responsibility and is fundamental to understanding modern professional liability, making it essential for contract, tort and professional negligence studies.
You're reading the free summary of Henderson v Merrett Syndicates. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.