Morgan Crucible Company Plc v Hill Samuel and Co Ltd: ChD 24 Jul 1990

The court laid down the procedure on a strike out application: ‘On an application to strike out a pleading under RSC Ord.18, r.19(1)(a) no evidence is admissible and since it is only the pleading itself which is being examined, the court is required to assume that each and every one of the facts pleaded (unless manifestly incapable of proof) is true and will be capable of proof at the trial. In some instances, the court may regard the assumption as somewhat unrealistic, but it nevertheless has to be made.’ The court set out the main principles under which a party can be liable for economic loss in negligence.


Hoffmann J


[1991] Ch 295


Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.18, r.19(1)(a)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (In Liquidation); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (In Liquidation); Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v Price Waterhouse CA 13-Feb-1998
The special relationship between an auditor and a bank, meant that a duty of care could extend even to a second bank with its own auditors. In determining whether there had been an assumption of responsibility, the the relevant factors would include . .
CitedHM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Appeal fromThe Morgan Crucible Company Plc v Hill Samuel and Co Ltd and others CA 19-Oct-1990
Appeal from refusal of leave to amend statement of claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185216