In the case of Haig v.Bamford,(1976)72 D.L.R.(3d)68 S.C.C.,the Supreme Court found the defendants (auditors)owed a duty of care to third-party claimants.Why did the court break away from its traditional approach of refusing all third-party claims for professional negligence in this particular instance?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In the Haig v. Bamford case, the Supreme Court determined that the auditors knew they were auditing financial statements for the purpose of third-party reliance, specifically a group of shareholders, and the auditors were aware of this limited group. As a result, the court found that the auditors owed a duty of care to these third-party claimants. This decision broke away from the traditional approach of refusing all third-party claims for professional negligence, which was based on the limited purposes of audited financial statements as set out in legislation. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the auditor's actual knowledge of the limited third-party group and their intended reliance.

In the Case of Haig V