Did Coutts owe any relevant duty of care when providing the undated letter?
Andrew Smith J held that Coutts did not assume any responsibility to the claimants in relation to a decision to continue or to terminate HMU’s underwriting agency, and were not assuming any such responsibility in relation to the claimants’ decision to subscribe to the second binding authority by way of renewal or otherwise. Andrew Smith J affirmed the importance of considering the purpose of the statement made in considering whether the maker of the statement owed a duty of care. • Causation and reliance – the claim of the following market. Andrew Smith J concluded that the leading underwriter did not rely upon the letter when deciding whether to terminate the first binding authority for breach or in subscribing to the second binding authority. Andrew Smith J concluded that, if the requisite reliance on the part of the leading underwriter had been established, he would have considered it sufficient to support a claim by the following market in respect of the first binding authority. •
