A large proportion of professional indemnity claims in the United Kingdom trace their intellectual ancestry to a single House of Lords decision from 1963. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 established that a professional who gives advice or information, in circumstances where the recipient is likely to rely on it, may owe a duty of care in tort even where there is no contract between the two parties. For accountants, solicitors, surveyors, financial advisers and other regulated professionals, this is the doctrinal foundation on which liability to third parties is built.
This entry sets out the case, the four elements the courts extracted from it, and how later decisions refined the assumption of responsibility test. For the facts alone, see Hedley Byrne v Heller. For the parallel test developed alongside it, see the Caparo three-stage test.
Hedley Byrne, an advertising agency, was considering extending credit to a client called Easipower. It asked its bankers to obtain a reference from Heller & Partners, Easipower's bankers. Heller gave a favourable reference, but marked it "without responsibility". Hedley Byrne relied on it, extended credit, and lost around £17,000 when Easipower went into liquidation.
The House of Lords found no liability on the facts, because the disclaimer was effective. But the wider principle was transformative: absent the disclaimer, a duty of care in tort would have been owed. Negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss was, for the first time, actionable outside contract.
The speeches of Lords Reid, Morris, Hodson, Devlin and Pearce did not produce one unified formula, but the elements courts have since extracted are:
In Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, Lord Goff clarified that the Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility test and the Caparo three-stage test are not rival doctrines but overlapping tools for identifying the same underlying duty. Where an assumption of responsibility is present, the Caparo enquiry into foreseeability, proximity and fairness will generally be satisfied.
Henderson also extended the principle beyond information-giving to professional services more generally: managing agents at Lloyd's owed duties in tort to the Names whose affairs they conducted, concurrently with any contractual duties.
The test also draws the line for personal liability of directors and employees. In Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830, the House of Lords held that a director will only be personally liable for a negligent statement made on behalf of his company where he has personally assumed responsibility, and where the claimant has reasonably relied on that personal assumption. Trading through a company remains a legitimate way to limit personal exposure — but only if the director does not, by his conduct, cross the line.
Worked example (illustrative only): An accountant is telephoned by a lender considering a facility for one of the accountant's clients. Without checking his files, the accountant says "the accounts are sound, you can lend safely". No disclaimer is given. The lender advances funds and suffers loss when the client's business fails.
Applying the four elements: the accountant holds special skill; the lender's reliance is reasonable given the accountant's professional status; proximity is established because the accountant knows the statement will be used for a lending decision; and, absent any disclaimer, an assumption of responsibility is likely to be found. A duty of care is arguably owed and a negligent misstatement claim is available.
Contrast the accountant who declines the reference, or says "I cannot comment without a written engagement — please instruct me formally". No skill deployed, no reliance invited, no responsibility assumed. The claim falls at the first hurdle.
Because the principle creates liability without contract, a professional's exposure to non-clients is a substantial part of what professional indemnity insurance is designed to respond to. Off-the-cuff comments, informal references and drafts shared with third parties can all cross the threshold. See accountants' PI insurance, solicitors' PI insurance, surveyors' PI insurance and financial advisers' PI insurance for sector-specific commentary.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.