Negligent misstatement
Negligent misstatement is liability in tort for a careless statement that causes another pure economic loss, where the maker assumed responsibility towards the claimant and the claimant reasonably relied on the statement — established in Hedley Byrne v Heller.
Last reviewed 14 June 2026
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 recognised that a “special relationship” — an assumption of responsibility plus reasonable reliance — can found a duty of care for words causing pure economic loss, an exception to the law's general reluctance to compensate economic loss in negligence.
It was refined by the Caparo three-stage test and applied to employment references (Spring v Guardian Assurance) and professional advice generally. It is distinct from contractual misrepresentation: it is a tort claim that can arise even without a contract.
Key cases
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
- Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1995] 2 AC 296
Frequently asked questions
What is negligent misstatement?
Liability in tort for a careless statement causing pure economic loss, where the maker assumed responsibility and the claimant reasonably relied on it (Hedley Byrne v Heller).
How is negligent misstatement different from misrepresentation?
Misrepresentation is a contract-law doctrine about false statements inducing a contract; negligent misstatement is a tort claim for economic loss caused by careless advice, which can arise even without a contract.
Related doctrines
Revising tort law for an exam?
Get structured revision notes and timed SQE1 practice that build on Negligent misstatement.
Revising law for an exam?
Get the free “50 Must-Know Cases for UK Law Exams” guide — grouped by module with the ratio for each, sent to your inbox.