LAW OF TORT PRESENTATION

LAW OF TORT PRESENTATION
November 17, 2019 Off All,

Description

(Appellant 2) WOODLEY V BUMSTEAD Court of Appeal December 2019 Tootsie Woodley regularly invested large sums of money on the Stock Exchange. portfolio included shares in C D Dithers & Co Ltd, a national construction company. Dagwood Bumstead audited the accounts of C D Dithers & Co Ltd and produced the annual report. His report stated that the company was in a difficult financial position. Consequently, Tootsie Woodley sold her existing shares for £200,000. When it later came to light that Dagwood Bumstead’s audit was flawed and the company was in a financially healthy position, the company’s share price rose sharply. Tootsie Woodley calculated that, had she kept her shareholding, it would now be worth £400,000. In her action in the High Court against Dagwood Bumstead, Blondie J held that there was no relationship of proximity between Woodley and Bumstead and so the claimant had failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Dagwood Bumstead owed a duty of care to Tootsie Woodley (Caparo v Dickman applied). Tootsie Woodley now appeals to the Court of Appeal. Dagwood Bumstead concedes that should the court hold that a duty of care is owed, then liability would be established. GUIDANCE ON THE SCENARIO 1. Tootsie Woodley is the appellant; Dagwood Bumstead, the respondent. 2. This is a negligence claim. To be successful, claimants need to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the defendant owed them a duty of care; that that duty had been breached; and that the breach caused damage to the appellant. 3. The respondent concedes that if the Court of Appeal holds that a duty of care is owed, liability will be established. 4. This means that the only issue before the Court of Appeal is duty of care. IN YOUR SUBMISSIONS NO MARKS WILL BE AWARDED FOR ARGUING POINTS RELATED TO BREACH AND CAUSATION (LEGAL OR FACTUAL).