The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "threefold - test". FACTS OF THE CASE: Since Fidelity was not doing well, it sold its shares at a half price. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman . Caparo Industries V Dickman FULL NOTES ON ALL ELEMENTS. Free tort notes & case summaries.In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman  UKHL the HL held that no duty of care was owed to Caparo Industries lpc. CITATION: ALL ER 568,  2 AC 605, UKHL 2. DECIDED ON:8 February 1990. This video case summary covers the fundamental English tort law case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman. Module. Caparo started to buy shares in large quantities. LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH. Case - Caparo Industries plc v Dickman Facts A company namely Fidelity Plc, used to manufacture electrical equipment was a target to be a takeover by Caparo Indutries Plc. Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman  UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care.The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". BENCH:Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Roskill,Lord Ackner,Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC. CAPARO INDUSTRIES vs DICKMAN. Case Summary of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman  UKHL 2. Claimant: Caparo Industries Defendant: Dickman, chartered accountants and auditors Facts: Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Ltd upon the basis of public accounts that had been prepared by Dickman. The tripartite test in establishing duty of care. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman  UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case in Caparo was the scope of the assumption of responsibility, and what the. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman  UKHL 2. is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. RESPONDENTS AND DICKMAN AND OTHERS APPELLANTS 1989 Nov. 16, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28; 1990 Feb. 8 Lord Bridge of Harwich , Lord Roskill , Lord Ackner , Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Their Lordships took time for consideration. Northumbria University. University. Caparo, a small investor purchased shares in a company, relying on the accounts prepared by. My Lords, the appellants are a well known firm of chartered â¦ The â¦ Tort Law [FT Law Plus] (LA0636) Uploaded â¦ The fact of the case: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) is a leading tort law case which extended the neighbour principle applied in the Donoghue v Stevenson by adding the third test of âjustice, fairness and reasonabilityâ to ascertain duty of care in negligence cases. RESPONDENT:Dickman. CASE SUMMARY. Facts. Victoria University of Wellington. University. COURT: House of Lords. This is a complete and detailed case analysis on the facts, judgement, test and significan... View more. In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence: APPELLANT: Caparo Industries . Course. Caparo Industries v Dickman. 8 February 1990. Detailed case brief, including paragraphs and page references Topic: Negligence.