Talk:Caparo Industries plc v Dickman

Legal significance section

The point should be made here regarding law in the commonwealth and how the cited New Zealand and Australia case law is mainly irrelevant as it only provides persuasive precedent under Stare Decisis, in fact- the section its self is pretty pointless... i've left it for some one else who agrees to remove, if there is anyone else

I agree fully, this holds no precedent in common law in other countries, and acts only as persuasive precedent, as stated above. I also see no point in this section being kept as it is irrelavent (spelt wrong I think, buts its late).

Image copyright problem with File:Logo fid.jpg

The image File:Logo fid.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I deleted the photo of the Caparo T1 as it isn't relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.184 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things to clarify

Can we clarify what "relationship of proximity" means? RJFJR (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A late response is better than no response—I've added a paragraph to the significance section that answers this. Ultimately, subsequent case law has answered for a variety of different contexts. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Needed

There is no question that this is a landmark case. There are numerous scholarly reliable secondary sources that say so, and analyze the case and its progeny at length. The problem is that none of those sources are cited as references, and the article appears to be entirely original research on the part of the various editors who have contributed to it. Simply summarizing cases based solely on the decision itself, without reference to secondary sources is original research. The reported decision of a court is a primary source and cannot be the sole basis for the article. The article needs to be rewritten with the text based instead on reliable secondary sources, which happily are readily available. Banks Irk (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a problem. Quite a few English legal articles on Wikipedia contain far too much direct quoting from judgments, and not nearly enough third party sourcing. I've added a few paragraphs to the significance section that include references to a number of third party sources. I'll try and find some time to add more soon. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]