ABSTRACT
In particular they may find it difficult to establish the required degree of proximity between themselves and the defendant, which means that the plaintiff may be unable to establish the existence of a duty of care. Another problem might arise where the loss suffered is pure economic loss. Although recovery for pure economic loss was allowed in the House of Lords in Junior Books v Veitchi (1983), Junior Books has been so heavily criticised in later cases that it seems highly unlikely that the case will found any future actions involving pure economic loss. In such situations, the tort of misfeasance in public office may provide an alternative cause of action, and this tort may be appropriate where policy reasons restrict a duty of care in negligence.
