9 6 3 ▁and ▁Home ▁Office ▁v ▁Dor set ▁Y acht ▁Co ▁in ▁ 1 9 7 0 . ▁ ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne ▁v ▁H eller ▁In ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne , ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne , ▁advert ising ▁agents , ▁had ▁been ▁indirect ly ▁informed ▁by ▁H eller ▁& ▁Part ners ▁Ltd , ▁the ▁bank ers ▁of ▁E as ip ower , ▁a ▁company ▁wish ing ▁to ▁place ▁a ▁large ▁order , ▁that ▁E as ip ower ▁was ▁a ▁" res pect ably ▁constit uted ▁company , ▁considered ▁good ▁for ▁its ▁ordinary ▁business ▁engag ements ". ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne ▁re lied ▁on ▁this ▁information ▁and ▁subsequently ▁lost ▁over ▁£ 1 7 , 0 0 0 ▁when ▁E as ip ower ▁went ▁into ▁liquid ation . ▁The ▁House ▁of ▁L ords ▁held ▁that ▁H eller ▁ow ed ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁as ▁they ▁used ▁a ▁special ▁skill ▁for ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne ▁and ▁because ▁this ▁skill ▁was ▁re lied ▁upon ▁by ▁the ▁company ▁( although ▁the ▁neg lig ence ▁claim ▁was ▁un success ful ▁due ▁to ▁a ▁disc la imer ▁of ▁responsibility ▁included ▁in ▁H eller ' s ▁letter ). ▁ ▁The ▁application ▁of ▁Don og h ue ▁was ▁discussed ▁and , ▁while ▁all ▁the ▁jud ges ▁agreed ▁that ▁it ▁would ▁be ▁taking ▁Don og h ue ▁too ▁far ▁to ▁immediately ▁apply ▁it ▁to ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne , ▁Lord ▁Dev lin ▁suggested ▁that ▁" what ▁Lord ▁At kin ▁did