Lord Reid considered that the damage caused by the defendant, the plaintiff's inability to run, his reduced working capacities etc. were not obviated by the shooter's act.
Lord Reid's judgment outlined the details, with which Lords Hodson, Pearce, Upjohn and Guest concurred.
Sometimes the alternative expression "neighbourhood" is used, as by Lord Reid in the Hedley Byrne case 1964 A.C. 465 , 483 and Lord Wilberforce in Anns v Merton London Borough Council 1978 A.C. 728 , 751H, with more conscious reference to Lord Atkin's speech in the earlier case.
Lord Reid read Lord Upjohn's speech as a part of his own and in accordance with the presumption in favour of the status quo (semper pracsumitur pro negante), the appeal was dismissed.
•
Kennedy v Spratt 1971 2 WLR 667 remained on the docket and Lord Upjohn had already prepared a speech, intending to vote with Lord Reid and Lord Diplock, dismissing the appeal.
The Act also suffered from drafting problems - in Central Asbestos Lord Reid described it as having "a strong claim to the distinction of being the worst drafted Act on the statute book".
The Lord of the Rings | Lord Byron | Lord Chancellor | Lord | Lord Mayor of London | Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales | Alfred, Lord Tennyson | Lord Kitchener | Lord Chamberlain | Lord President of the Council | Lord Lieutenant of Ireland | Lord Chancellor of Ireland | Lord & Taylor | Lord Mayor | Lord Deputy of Ireland | Lord of the Manor | Lord's Resistance Army | Harry Reid | Lord's Prayer | Lord Peter Wimsey | Lord's Cricket Ground | Lord Nelson | Lord's | Lord Privy Seal | Lord Mayor of Dublin | Lord Howe Island | Thomas Fairfax, 3rd Lord Fairfax of Cameron | Lord Justice of Appeal | Lord Alfred Douglas | The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers |
(That judgment received a mixed reception from this House in Czarnikow v Koufos 1969 1 AC 350: Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, at p 399, found it "a most valuable analysis" but Lord Upjohn, at p 423, described it as a "colourful interpretation" of Hadley v Baxendale and Lord Reid, at pp 388-90, criticised some aspects of it, but not para (4) of Asquith LJ's summary.