Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected,[1] with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law.

[2] The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".

...in my judgment, the bank in the present case, by the words which they employed, effectively disclaimed any assumption of a duty of care.

But where negligence is involved the tendency has been to apply principles analogous to those stated by Lord Atkin ([as in] Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465).

In such normal practices of reliance, in the consumer setting, the court extends Hedley Byrne liability and overrides many disclaimers.