Where D’s negligence has caused economic (financial) loss, it will generally be recoverable if it was merely ‘consequential’ to some physical harm. If, however, D’s negligence has caused financial loss on its own, not as a result of any physical damage, this is referred to as ‘pure’ economic loss and is generally not recoverable.

This recording explains:

• the policy concerns involved
• how to distinguish between consequential and pure economic loss
• the exceptions to the general rule of no duty for pure economic loss (in particular where loss is caused by a negligent statement or by certain negligently performed services)

Duration: 53 minutes (approx)

Lecturer: Gianni Vuolo

Order securely online and get immediate access to the lecture.

More recordings in the Law of Tort

• Negligence – liability for words and economic loss Q&A
• Negligence: liability for omissions and nervous shock Q&A
• Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher Q&A
• Occupiers Liability Q&A 2
• Tort part A 2022 – Can the Supreme Court halt the ongoing expansion of vicarious liability?
• Common law torts relating to land.
• Public bodies
• Negligence – economic loss
• Liability for omissions
• Causation and remoteness
• Breach of duty
• Negligence – psychiatric harm
• Defamation Q&A
• Negligence – psychiatric harm Q&A