Robinson v PE Jones Ltd [2011] 3 WLR 815

Facts

  • Mr. Robinson purchased a house constructed by PE Jones Ltd.
  • The property was subsequently found to have defective foundations, resulting in significant structural issues.
  • Mr. Robinson brought a claim against PE Jones Ltd, alleging negligence in the construction and seeking damages for the cost of repairs.
  • The losses claimed were purely economic, relating to repair costs without accompanying physical damage to persons or property.
  • There was a contractual relationship between Mr. Robinson and PE Jones Ltd regarding the purchase of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether PE Jones Ltd owed Mr. Robinson a duty of care in tort to avoid causing pure economic loss in the context of defective construction.
  2. Whether a duty of care in tort can coexist with contractual obligations where the parties’ contract defines their rights and liabilities.
  3. Whether the absence of a special relationship precludes recovery in tort for pure economic loss arising from defective performance of a contract.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of a special relationship, PE Jones Ltd did not owe Mr. Robinson a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss resulting from defective construction.
  • The contractual relationship between the parties was determinative of their rights and remedies, including limitations on liability.
  • The court found that tort law should not be used to circumvent the terms or limitations expressed in the contract.
  • Mr. Robinson could not recover in tort for losses that were not recoverable under the contract.
  • The Court emphasized policy concerns, including the risk of indeterminate liability, as grounds for refusing to extend tortious duties in such circumstances.

Legal Principles

  • The existence of a contract generally limits the scope of tortious duties between contracting parties for pure economic loss.
  • Concurrent liability in contract and tort is limited; a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss arises only in specific cases, such as the existence of a special relationship.
  • Recovery for pure economic loss in tort is restricted to avoid creating indeterminate liability, particularly in the absence of contractual privity or duty.
  • The terms of the contract, including any exclusions or limitations, define the parties’ primary obligations and remedies.
  • The principles set out in prior leading cases, such as Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, and Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398, were reaffirmed.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss does not arise where a contract defines the parties' obligations and no special relationship exists, reinforcing the primacy of contractual terms in allocating risk and remedies for defective performance.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal