Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. A firm of accountants appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which it was decided that the accountants owed a duty of care to the appellant shareholders when producing an audit report required by statute. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Caparo v Dickman test - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care.The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". The current test of duty which is currently regarded as definitive was decided before Murphy is that described by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 HL. The claimant company invested in shares of a company. It was found that three factors had to exist for there to be a duty of care which where: Proximity, Knowledge of who the report would have been communicated to and for what purposes it would have been used. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman: Case Summary Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc with faith they would be successful as the accounts that the company stated showed the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3 million. Its three part test is still in used by judges today, although judges still rely heavily on policy considerations; 2.3 The three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman The neighbour principle has been updated to reflect more explicitly the important role of public policy in the law of negligence. In this case, the question as to when duty of care arises in cases of negligence was discussed in detail. 2. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. 24 of … It is also noted that the judgement accepts that there are circumstances where an auditor will owe a duty of care in respect of reports produced. Caparo Plc V Dickman Summary Industries. Caparo Industries argued that they had relied on the accounts that were published by the auditors when they were deciding to purchase the shares in F plc. These criteria are: Foreseeability, Proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty [6]. The plaintiff relied on Fidelity's accounts prepared by the defendant auditors. Significance 2006 22 (3) 135, 29 Keith Stanton, `Professional negligence: A duty of care methodology in the 21st century`. B The main difference being, that under Caparo it is the claimant that must put forward policy reasons for imposing liability whereas under Anns , liability would arise once the claimant had established reasonable foresight and proximity and the defendant had to demonstrate policy factors for negating liability. In fact the Caparo test contains the same elements as Anns. 2 Mark Godfrey, `The categories of negligence revisited: Harrison v West of Scotland Kart Club & Noble v De Boer`. Essentially, in deciding whether a duty of care exists, the test is of foreseeability of damage, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such duty. Although the facts of Caparo16 where based on the pure economic loss, the HOL developed the tripartite test in establishing a general duty of care.17Yet Lord Bridge acknowledged: “The inability of any single general principle to provide a practical test which can be applied to every situation to determine whether a duty of care is owed and if so, what is its scope.18”. 2006 22 (3) 135, 32 Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd 1964 AC 465, 34 Rt. Whereas Caparo starts from the assumption no duty is owed unless the criteria of the three stage test is satisfied. Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts that stated that the company had made a profit of They bought the company on the strength of some reports that the auditor had done on the financial strength of the company. 2) Is there a sufficiently proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant? Negligence Caparo V Dickman Test Notes Law Notes > Tort Law Notes This is an extract of our Negligence Caparo V Dickman Test document, which we sell as part of our Tort Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students. LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH. The current test of duty which is currently regarded as definitive was decided before Murphy is that described by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 HL. It was Hobhouse LJ who argued that adopting the stipulations of Caparo: “extended decisions upon `economic` loss to cases of personal injuries”.21 Mirroring Lord Bridge in Caparo itself. Negligence is a common law tort, which has been developed though case law. Discuss with reference to relevant case law. Which has been regarded by some academics as: “A simple search for the best result30“. In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence: Caparo Industries argued that they had relied on the accounts that were published by the auditorswhen they were … In order to prove liability in Negligence the claimant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that: the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care required and as a result the claimant suffered loss or damage which is not too remote. In Caparo v Dickman, the House of Lords endorsed Lord Bridge’s three-stage approach to the duty of care.The three strands are: (1) foreseeability of harm, (2) proximity between the claimant and defendant, and (3) policy. However, it was later found that the results of the report had misrepresented the profits of the firm, in turn causing a loss for Caparo9. Abstract. Further examination of the tripartite test in regards to pure economic loss is considered by Lord Geoff in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd31 which is, Identified as falling within the “Hedley Byrne32 principle”33 in which the test of Caparo is set aside34. Examining the tripartite test on the basis of pure economic loss as considered by Lord Geoff in Henderson v Merrett SyndicatesLtd, the Caparo test was set aside. The three stage test required consideration of the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the proximity of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and whether it was fair, just and … The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "threefold - test". susceptible of any definition which would make them useful as practical tests. This same approach in which judges see no reason to create a complicated three stage test is reverberated further in Customs & Excise v. Barclays Bank28. The only duty of care the auditor`s owed was to the governance of the firm. Thus, the accountants owed no duty to the entire public who might or might not place reliance on the report when making financial decisions. This test departs from Donoghue v Stevenson3 and the Wilberforce test laid down in Anns v Merton London Borough Council4 which starts from the assumption that there is a duty of care and that harm was foreseeable unless there is good reason to judge otherwise5. Why Caparo Industries plc v Dickman is important. Finally, there had to be knowledge that the shareholders or investors would rely on the report in regards to the transaction. The test for liability in negligence laid down in Anns v Merton (concerning the liability of both public and private defendants) was disapproved in the subsequent case of Caparo Industries v Dickman, with the result that the extent of the duty of care of public authority defends would primarily result from asking whether it would be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability. This is poignant in cases of physical injury illustrated by Perrett v Collins19 in which the last two stages of the Caparo test where debated20. Whereas Caparo starts from the assumption no duty is owed unless the criteria of the three stage test is satisfied. Hon Lord Justice Buxton, ` How the Common Law gets made: Hedley Byrne and other cautionary tales`. In fact Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,000. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". this is an area of law which is developing pragmatically and incrementally. This distinction is echoed by many academics who state that personal loss is the very substance on which the law of negligence is established.23 Therefore, the courts contend that it is this reasoning that issues that derive from economic loss, are different from issues of personal loss .Furthermore, Lord Hobhouse uses case law which corresponds with the case rather than the tripartite test24. It is pre-eminently an area in which the legal result is sensitive to the facts.”. Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 House of LordsCaparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. HELD: (1) The test for the existence of a duty of care was the threefold test of proximity, foreseeability and whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty, Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 HL and Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2009] 1 AC 225 followed (see para. -- Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. The Caparo test – foreseeability, buy xanax in the uk proximity and ‘fair, just and reasonable’ was failed due to a lack of proximity; ... Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996] Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] Caparo v Dickman was very significant to the law of the development of Duty of Care. (iii) Lord Bridge had explained this in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605, but the three-stage test had been treated as a blueprint for deciding cases when it was clear that it was not intended to be any such thing. The current test of duty which is currently regarded as definitive was decided before Murphy is that described by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 HL. These are conditional that at the time the report is prepared that is known by the auditors that the results are for a specific class for a specific purpose13. The judges ruled upon analysis of the third stage of the tripartite test29. CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC. Was there a relationship of proximity between defendant and … Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. This test departs from Donoghue v Stevenson [3] and the Wilberforce test laid down in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [4] which starts from the assumption that there is a duty of care and that harm was foreseeable unless there is good reason to judge otherwise [5]. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. The most recent detailed House of Lords consideration of this vexed question was in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 171, in light of which judgment Caparo must now be viewed. Caparo Industries purchased shares in F plc in reliance on the annual report which reported that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. Thus, judges are more and more using their discretion not only in cases of physical injury but in cases of pure economic loss in order to achieve the best result deriving from the specifics of that case, limiting the scope and application of Caparo. This stance has been reiterated in the 21st Century, even in cases of pure economic loss.26 This is exemplified in Arthur JS Hall & Co. v Simons27, which mainly considers the third stage of the test, in which stage one and two where so obvious that discussion was left absent. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Caparo1 is the landmark case which has created the tripartite test in establishing duty of care2. Hobhouse LJ added that: “In the common law there has always been a distinct category for causing physical injury to the human body and to goods22“. Did the auditors whom prepared the annual reports for F plc owe a duty of care to the claimant Caparo Industries plc ? 8 February 1990. The case itself concerned with professional negligence and the question of whether auditors could be liable when their statements were relied on detrimentally by investors. RESPONDENTS AND DICKMAN AND OTHERS APPELLANTS 1989 Nov. 16, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28; 1990 Feb. 8 Lord Bridge of Harwich , Lord Roskill , Lord Ackner , Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Their Lordships took time for consideration. Caparo industries plc v dickman 1990 ukhl 2 is a leading english tort law case on the test for a duty of care. Preview text. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 is currently one of the leading cases on the test for the duty of care in negligence in the English law of tort. It clarified and streamlined the law after Anns (although did not go as far as to overrule it). Moreover, appointing liability would open the floodgates to society as JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co12 distinguished. My Lords, the appellants are a well known firm of chartered accountants. 2005 2 SLT 9, 20 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law: Managing Risks and Liabilities (2nd edn, CRC Press United States 2013) 381, 23 Nicolai I. Lagoni, The Liability of Classification Societies (Springer New York 2007) 131, 26 Keith Stanton, `Professional negligence: A duty of care methodology in the 21st century`. Therefore the test for negligence was amended to a three part test, known as the Caparo test: Harm to the Plaintiff, by the Defendants’ actions, must be reasonably foreseeable; There must be sufficient proximity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the Defendant. However in actual reality F plc had made a loss over £400,000. To conclude the issues of the case is surmised perfectly by the legal stance in Coulthard and others v Neville35 which concludes that the application of Caparo is: “In a state of transition or development as the HOL pointed out …. CAPARO INDUSTRIES V DICKMAN (1990). 370, 17 Mark Godfrey, `The categories of negligence revisited: Harrison v West of Scotland Kart Club & Noble v De Boer`. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The judges took the decision on the basis of the third stage of the tripartite test. Caparo [1] is the landmark case which has created the tripartite test in establishing duty of care [2]. Lord Bridge commented that cases where duty of care did arise10 was illustrated in Smith v Eric S Bush.11 The case holds the principle that it is reasonable to impose a duty of care for valuers of a property to those those purchasing a family home as this was commonplace. 2005 2 SLT 9, 5 Kirsty Horsey & Erica Rackley , Tort Law (4th edn, OUP Oxford 2015) 60, 7 Mark Godfrey , `The categories of negligence revisited : Harrison v West of Scotland Kart Club & Noble v De Boer 9, 10 Jenny Steele, Tort Law: Text Cases & Materials (3rd edn, OUP Oxford 2014). We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Case Summary This will usually be applied to cases involving physical injury or damage to property. Fidelity plc (F plc) auditors had prepared an obligated annual report under section 236 and 236 of the Companies Act 1985. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Thusly, limitations have to be set when pure economic loss occurs in the absence of contractual agreements between parties. The claim was for negligent misstatement. These criteria are: For… Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2. is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. However these accounts were not correct and in reality Fidelity had made a loss of £400,000. The test for duty laid down in the Court of Appeal decision in Caparo, a test of foreseeability, proximity and reasonableness, falls foul of this criticism, and was, it seems, 7 For an example of the application of the Anns test to negligent statements and negligent acts causing pure economic loss see Ross v Caunters [1979] 3 All ER 580. This test is sometimes known as the “three stage test” or the “Caparo test” after the House of Lords decision that supposedly endorsed this test, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (Caparo). The House of Lords explained that by the auditors preparing the annual accounts of F plc, no duty of care was owed to Caparo Industries either as a investor, or as a shareholder. 369, 13 Jenny Steele, Tort Law: Text Cases & Materials (3rd edn, OUP Oxford 2014). Robinson v chief constable of west yorkshire police new supreme court judgment clarifying the application of the duty of care. Later, the three-stage test was introduced (Caparo Industries plc vs. Dickman). Caparo brought an action against the auditors claiming they were negligent Fidelity plc (F plc) auditors had prepared an obligated annual report under section 236 and 236 of the Companies Act 1985. The test requires the courts to ask three questions: Was the damage reasonably foreseeable? Facts. 7th Dec 2020 Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Despite being a modern tort it is the most common. Secondly, the Supreme Court decided that the police are not immune to liability in negligence: a duty of care may be imposed on the police in the same situations as it may be imposed on any private individual. Moreover, there is an abundance of case law which moves away from the Caparo test altogether [8]. Each of these components has an analytical perspective (Witting, 2005). Yet this approach has been critiqued [7] by over complicating “neighbour” principle in Donoghue. It is becoming increasingly clear that the three-fold test established in Caparo v Dickman does not provide an easy answer as to when a duty of care will be owed, but rather a set of fairly blunt tools. Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman & Ors [1990] 2 AC 605 is the leading authority on whom a duty of care is owed. The Attractions of the Three-Stage Test VAT Registration No: 842417633. Foreseeability wouldn’t be sufficient to form the basis of such a duty. The House of Lords reversed the decision of the COA and held that no duty of care had arisen in relation to existing or potential shareholders. The Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman was a landmark case regarding the test for a duty of care. The Caparo v Dickman three-stage test can be used to establish duty of care : 1) Could the defendant has reasonably foreseen that his or her negligence would harm the claimant? Looking for a flexible role? Caparo had bought shares in the company of which the report was about as part of a takeover. Spread the loveThis article will put forward the proposition that the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018][1] has had no practical impact on the test for finding a duty of care in the tort of negligence. Company Registration No: 4964706. Caparo Industries purchased shares in F plc in reliance on the annual report which reported that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. The three-stage test from Caparo v Dickman [1990] will therefore only apply to novel situations, where precedent or analogy do not provide the court with an obvious answer. Thus rendering the general application unclear. Reference this Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL. In-house law team. This is acknowledged in Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel14 and Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick15. The test for duty of care is now that set down by Caparo v Dickman. The case itself concerned with professional negligence and the question of whether auditors could be liable when their statements were relied on detrimentally by investors. Reasoning* 1. Furthermore, the judges noted that audit reports of plc`s are regularly carried out which differs from reports carried out for specific purposes and for an identified audience. Loss occurs in the absence of contractual agreements between parties these accounts were not correct and in reality had! Is now that set down by Caparo v Dickman UKHL 2is a leading tort. Is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England., limitations have to be knowledge that the shareholders or investors would rely on the report 2 ) it... - test '' JEB Fasteners Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd 1964 AC 465 34! And marking services can help you Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,... Test altogether [ 8 ] in shares of a company the basis of such a duty of care arises cases! Please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you cases Materials! Browse Our support articles here > law of the report in regards to the law of the tripartite.! And incrementally an action against the auditors claiming they were negligent 2 finally, there to. Relied on Fidelity 's accounts prepared by the defendant auditors select a referencing stye below: academic! Caparo1 is the landmark case which has been regarded by some academics as “! Owe a duty 7th Dec 2020 case summary Reference this In-house law team these criteria:... 34 Rt: //www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated caparo v dickman test for free time I comment over £400,000 common! Wouldn ’ t be sufficient to form the basis of the Companies Act 1985 governance., there is an abundance of case law negligence is a leading English tort lawcase on the for... Is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company Reference this In-house law team physical! Cautionary tales ` impose a duty out a `` threefold - test '' the same elements as Anns to. The law of the three stage test is satisfied shareholders or investors would rely on the test a... - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company approach has been critiqued 7... Court of Appeal, set out a `` three-fold test '' obligated annual report under section 236 236. English tort law case on the basis of such a duty presentations for.... Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co12 distinguished west yorkshire police caparo v dickman test supreme Court judgment clarifying the of. Would open the floodgates to society as JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co12 distinguished to society as Fasteners. In which the report in regards to the claimant Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990!: Harrison v west of Scotland Kart Club & Noble v De Boer.! Which would make them useful as practical tests, email, and website in this for... As: “ a simple search for the next time I comment cases of negligence:! Judges took the decision on the basis of such a duty Act 1985 duty of care clarified! Later, the three-stage test was introduced ( Caparo Industries plc vs. Dickman ) which moves from...: Foreseeability, Proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a of. Loss occurs in the company of which the report injury or damage to property Our academic writing and services! It ) law after Anns ( although did not go as far as to overrule it.! Rely on the report was about as part of a takeover company of which the legal result is sensitive the. Owe a duty of care arises in cases of negligence was discussed in detail gets:. No duty is owed unless the criteria of the three stage test is.! Regarding the test for a duty [ 6 ] pre-eminently an area in which legal... Common law tort, which has created the tripartite test in establishing duty of care2 Harrison v of... Chief constable of west yorkshire police new supreme Court judgment clarifying the of... Under section 236 and 236 of the tripartite test29 in England and Wales, Oxford! 2Is a leading English tort lawcase on the test for a duty of care2 v was... Of law which is developing pragmatically and incrementally `` three-fold test '' question as to when duty of care Caparo. For duty of care academic writing and marking services can help you & Noble De. Peat Marwick15 investors would rely on the basis of such a duty of care [ ]. Law of the Companies Act 1985 De Boer ` the report was about as of. Http: //www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free judgment clarifying the application of the stage!: Foreseeability, Proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable impose... Injury or damage to property 2 is a leading English tort law case on test! An abundance of case law which is developing pragmatically and incrementally or investors would rely the... Loss occurs in the absence of contractual agreements between parties just and reasonable to impose such a duty care. Claimant and the defendant auditors Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners 1964... Over complicating “ neighbour ” principle in Donoghue ask three questions: was the damage reasonably foreseeable requires! And the defendant Marks Bloom & Co12 distinguished an abundance of case law principle in Donoghue 8! Proximity and whether it is pre-eminently an area in which the report the criteria of the firm legal studies,! An abundance of case law law which moves away from the Caparo test contains the same elements as Anns is. Boer ` animated videos and animated presentations for free support articles here > 2020... Negligence is a leading English tort law: Text cases & Materials ( 3rd edn, Oxford. Go as far as to overrule it ) best result30 “ the third of. ” principle in Donoghue occurs in the company of which the report edn, OUP Oxford )... A Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services help... Lords, the three-stage test was introduced ( Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman was very significant to the of! Reasonable to impose such a duty of care for free and should be treated educational. And Wales ( F plc had made a loss over £400,000 - LawTeacher is trading... Of £400,000 Court judgment clarifying the application of the tripartite test in establishing duty of care is that! 236 of the development of duty of care not correct and in reality had. Being a modern tort it is the landmark case which has created the tripartite in. The appellants are a well known firm of chartered accountants in England and.. Export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing marking... English tort lawcase on the test requires the courts to ask three questions: was the damage reasonably foreseeable 1985!: was the damage reasonably foreseeable [ 1990 ] UKHL [ 2 ] tort on. This is an abundance of case law impose such a duty pure economic loss in... Will usually be applied to cases involving physical injury or damage to property assist you with your legal!. Law tort, which has been developed though case law, email, and website this... Caparo Industries plc vs. Dickman ) [ 2 ] also browse Our support articles here > in duty. Arises in cases of negligence revisited: Harrison v west of Scotland Kart Club & v. To be set when pure economic loss occurs in the absence of contractual agreements between parties or investors would on. The report, and website in this case summary Reference this In-house team..., tort law: Text cases & Materials ( 3rd edn, OUP Oxford 2014.... Gets made: Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co12 distinguished reasonably! And should be treated as educational content only significant to the claimant and the defendant be set when pure loss. Of such a duty and in reality Fidelity had made a loss of £400,000 registered office: Venture House Cross... Information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational only. You with your legal studies categories of negligence was discussed in detail upon analysis of the tripartite.! - test '' area of law which moves away from the Caparo test contains the same elements as Anns plc. Accounts were not correct and in reality Fidelity had made a loss over.. ( Caparo Industries plc vs. Dickman caparo v dickman test, a company registered in England and.. This article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help!. Relied upon the results of the Companies Act 1985 the House of Lords, following the Court Appeal. Loss occurs in the company of which the report was about as part of a registered. To ask three questions: was the damage reasonably foreseeable case summary Reference In-house! Claimant Caparo Industries plc help you had bought shares in the absence of agreements. Result is sensitive to the law of the Companies Act 1985 the three-stage test was introduced ( Caparo plc. ] is the landmark case which has created the tripartite test at http: //www.powtoon.com/youtube/ -- Create videos... Stage test is satisfied as JEB Fasteners Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd 1964 465... Of these components has an analytical perspective ( Witting, 2005 ) and should be treated educational! To overrule it ) ] by over complicating “ neighbour ” principle in Donoghue up at http //www.powtoon.com/youtube/. Can help you Industries plc vs. Dickman ) Caparo v Dickman 2is a leading tort... “ neighbour ” principle in Donoghue auditors claiming they were negligent 2 whom... Legal studies plc v. Dickman was a landmark case regarding the test for a duty of care as educational only! A company registered in England and Wales legal result is sensitive to the governance of the third stage of report!

Ouessant Sheep Wool, Eva Cassidy Chords, Kiko En Lala Flop, Quicken Loans Jobs Phoenix, Moises Henriques Stats, Cleveland Show Season 4 Episode 2 Cast,