Legal Case Summary
Chaudry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29.
DUTY OF CARE – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT
Facts
The plaintiff was seeking to purchase a car and asked the defendant, her friend, to assist her on the basis that he claimed to be knowledgeable on the subject. She purchased a car on the recommendation of the defendant. The car had visible damage, however the defendant did not enquire about the cause of this to the seller, and simply informed the plaintiff that he was sure it had not been in any accidents. It later transpired that the car was badly unroadworthy due to damage caused in a serious previous accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant owed a duty of care in the provision of the advice which he had offered and had negligently breached this duty.
Issues
The issue was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to his friend for the provision of advice on a non-contractual and informal basis.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that a duty of care did exist as the defendant was aware that the plaintiff had relied on his advice, and had done so on the basis that he had held himself out as being knowledgeable about cars.
However, the decision has been criticised as it appears to contradict numerous dicta of the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, which suggest that a duty of care only arises in relation to advice given in a professional or business context.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a description of Chaudry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 and its place in the law of negligent misstatement. The core legal principles discussed — the Hedley Byrne duty of care arising from voluntary assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance — continue to represent good law. Subsequent case law, including Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 and Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, has developed and refined the assumption of responsibility framework, and students should be aware that these cases are now central to understanding when a duty of care arises for negligent misstatement. The criticism noted in the article — that the decision sits uneasily with the professional or business context suggested in Hedley Byrne — remains a live academic debate. There have been no subsequent statutory changes materially affecting the principles discussed. The article is broadly accurate but should be read alongside the later authorities mentioned above for a complete picture of the current law.
