“Michael [v Chief Constable of South Wales, [2015] UKSC 2] may well mark the beginning of a new era of duty of care jurisprudence in the UK. It suggests a clear willingness by the Supreme Court to break with the Caparo test. It also moves policy considerations, consistently with the hostility expressed towards to [sic.] the Caparo test, out of the limelight. Scholars who seek to explain tort law in terms of rights will celebrate Michael principally for this reason.”

Do you agree with the assessment of Goudkamp that Michael is potentially a revolution in the duty of care? Is that a good development or a bad one? In particular, how does the importance of the “incremental test” in Michael compare to its role in Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank, [2006] UKHL 28? Which approach is better, and why?

 
Looking for the best essay writer? Click below to have a customized paper written as per your requirements.