Justice Gleeson saw the claim for costs of raising and maintaining the child as a claim for a novel form
of pure economic loss arising because a parent - child relationship had come into existence [26]- [27].
This stance has been reiterated in the 21st Century, even in cases
of pure economic loss.26 This is exemplified in Arthur JS Hall & Co. v Simons27, which mainly considers the third stage of the test, in which stage one and two where so obvious that discussion was left absent.
Not exact matches
The Manitoba Court
of Appeal has held that a defendants» motion for summary judgment should be dismissed, rejecting their argument that claims for
pure economic loss for patent defects that are not imminently dangerous should not proceed to trial.
«I don't suggest expanding the scope
of tort law (ie — compensation to victims struck by lightening, or compensation for
pure economic loss etc.) I simply suggest that those who the law says ought to be compensated actually be compensated.»
A proposed class action against Whirlpool Canada LP was a «product liability claim for
pure economic losses for an allegedly negligently designed non-dangerous product» that disclosed no plain and obvious cause
of action, an Ontario court ruled.
Although the facts
of Caparo16 where based on the
pure economic loss, the HOL developed the tripartite test in establishing a general duty
of care.17 Yet Lord Bridge acknowledged:
Damage is damage -
pure economic loss is a recognised form
of damage.
The scope
of damage recoverable includes direct and consequential damage (including
pure economic loss and, in some jurisdictions, punitive damages).
Against this background Lord Hoffmann thought it would be «an extraordinary step suddenly to extend the old tort
of conversion to impose strict liability for
pure economic loss on receivers who were appointed and acted in good faith».