P ran a nursing home which D had closed down on the basis of a false conclusion that the home wasn’t doing a good job. P sued D for negligence in causing P economic loss. CA held that although there was proximity, it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care towards P, when this might conflict with the statutory duty for D to ensure the welfare of the residents (i.e. if the PA have to worry about being sued for negligence then they might not close down homes which do treat the residents v badly). If human rights had been abused, they could be remedied through s.6 HRA 1998, so that a restrictive approach to negligence no longer resulted in a lack of an effective remedy in breach of article 13 ECHR. This latter point has been supported subsequently by HL in Smith v Chief Constable of the Sussex Police, Lord Bingham dissenting.
