Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Professional Negligence - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 49 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Kenyon-Brown v Desmond Banks and Co [2000] PNLR 266
2000

Mance LJ
Professional Negligence

1 Citers


 
Bristol and West Building Society v Baden Barnes and Groves [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 788
2000
CA

Limitation, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
cw Proposed amendments to a plaintiff's pleadings failed to prevent a striking out. The amendments either sought to advance by a different route the earlier claim which was bound to fail, or sought to introduce a new cause of action which was statute barred and did not derive from the same, or substantially the same, facts.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Webster v Cooper and Burnett [2000] PNLR 240
2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

1 Citers


 
Margaret Patricia Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 01 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 178
21 Jan 2000
QBD
The Hon. Mrs Justice Ebsworth Dbe
Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages
The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against public policy to award them. In this case, the chances of success were also still very small. Such a claim, properly made might be recoverable under other circumstances.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Harris v Bolt Burdon (A Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 3037; [2000] CP Rep 70; [2000] CPLR 9
2 Feb 2000
CA

Limitation, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
A case is suitable for striking out which raises an unwinnable case, where continuance of the proceedings is without any possible benefit and would waste resources on both sides.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kent v Griffiths and others [2000] EWCA Civ 3017; [2000] 2 WLR 1158; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2001] QB 36; [2000] PIQR P57; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 109
3 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Health Professions
A doctor attended the home of a patient suffering from an asthma attack and called for an ambulance to take her immediately to hospital. The control replied "Okay doctor." After 13 minutes the ambulance had not arrived and the patient's husband made a further call. He was told that an ambulance was well on the way and should arrive in seven or eight minutes. For unexplained reasons it did not arrive until 40 minutes after the first call. The patient suffered a respiratory arrest which would have been prevented if the ambulance had arrived in a reasonable time. The patient's doctor gave evidence that if she had been told that it would take the ambulance service 40 minutes to come, she would have advised the patient's husband to drive her to hospital and would have gone with them. Held. The defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant. The ambulance service, as part of the health service, should be regarded as providing services equivalent to those provided by hospitals, and not as providing services equivalent to those rendered by the police and fire services. Accordingly, the staff of the ambulance service owed a similar duty of care to that owed by doctors and nurses operating in the health service.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kent v Griffiths and Others (No 2) Times, 10 February 2000; Gazette, 17 February 2000; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2001] 1 QB 36; [2000] EWCA Civ 25
10 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Woolf MR Aldous and Laws LJJ
Professional Negligence, Health Professions
An ambulance service could be liable in negligence in respect of its response to an emergency call-out where for no good reason there was an unreasonable delay in responding, and the servivice had accepted the call. The ambulance service was distinguishable from the fire and police services. They owed a duty over and above the need not to add to the claimant's suffering. There could be no rational reason for not responding. There was a duty of care, and the delay added to the injury. Taking an example of a police officer the example of a police officer helping a pedestrian across the road: "If the policeman assumes this task there is no reason of policy or proximity why he should be in any different position from a school teacher who performs this task and, if this is appropriate on the facts, is liable for negligence."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dickinson (T/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) v Rushmer (T/a F J Associates) [2000] EWCA Civ 42
14 Feb 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Beth Linda Matthews (an Infant By Her Mother and Next Friend Janice England Formerly Matthews) v East Suffolk Health Authority [2000] EWCA Civ 58
25 Feb 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Howkins and Harrison (A Firm) v Tyler and Another Gazette, 09 March 2000
9 Mar 2000
ChD

Damages, Professional Negligence
Having paid out £400,000 to a lender as damages for a negligent survey valuation after default in repayments by the defendant, the claimant sought to recover the payment from the defendant under the Act. The application was refused. The Act could only operate for a claim for the same damage. What was lost by the lender from the default was not the same. Compensation was not the same as recovery of a debt, and the claimant could not claim a subrogation for the lender.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Rex Goose v Wilson Sandford and Co (a Firm) (No 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 73; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 189
14 Mar 2000
CA

Professional Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jenmain Builders and Others v Steed and Steed (A Firm) Gazette, 30 March 2000; 2000 BNLR 616
20 Mar 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ
Professional Negligence, Land, Damages
The defendant firm of solicitors acted on the sale of property, but failed to notify a purchaser that he was in a contract race and that another contract had been sent out. The claimant would have been able to exchange, and to have acquired the property. Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own professional rules and were liable, even though in this case the damages were minimal in the absence of any proof of loss of profits.
Chadwick LJ said:- "This was a property with development potential. It is common ground that this property was no longer to be used as a village hall. It would have to be used for some other purpose; and there would have to be some development so that it could be used for that purpose. The question was: for what development could planning permission be obtained and how valuable would the property be on completion of that development? But those are the factors which a properly informed market will take into account in fixing the market value of property. The profit potential of the property is an element to be taken into account in fixing its market value. It is not suggested that there was anything special about this property to the appellants as purchasers. It is not suggested that there were not other developers in the market for property of this nature who could have made a proper assessment of the value of this property. The problem for the appellants in the present case is that they never sought to persuade the judge - and never adduced evidence to establish - that the market value of this property, Dukes Hall, was anything greater than the £67,500 which the Parish Council was seeking. It is for those reasons that the claim for loss of profits is one which the court could not entertain in this case. . . In the present case, there is no evidence that these appellants would not have been able to purchase other property in the market which they could develop profitably with the use of the money which they did not lay out in the purchase of Dukes Hall. There is no evidence that the respondents, insofar as their duty lay in contract, were aware of any special circumstances which made it impossible for the respondents to employ their funds in the ordinary course of their business, or of any circumstances which suggested that this property was being sold at an under-value. Indeed, in the circumstances that they were acting for the vendors, the Parish Council, it would be most unlikely that they would regard the property as being sold at an under- value rather than at market price".
1 Citers


 
Ball v Banner and Others; Neill Clark (A Firm) v Healey and Baker (A Firm) Gazette, 23 March 2000; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 569
23 Mar 2000
ChD
Hart J
Professional Negligence, Damages
A valuer had described expected values for an property proposed as an investment promoted by a co-defendant. The valuation and prediction as to how long it might take to have it let had contributed to the representations leading to the investments being made and the assessments had been made without any effective degree of analysis or care, and the company was responsible to make a contribution of one quarter. The contribution was properly claimed since it was four square with the original claim. The "damage in question" meant the loss suffered by the investors from entering into the transaction. Sections 2 (3) (a) and (b) made it "clear that persons may be liable in respect of the same damage without necessarily being liable in the same amounts".
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1 2(3)
1 Citers


 
Gilrose Finance Limited v Ellis Gould [2000] UKPC 14
23 Mar 2000
PC

Commonwealth, Professional Negligence
PC (New Zealand) An investor had agreed to invest in a tour by a sports star. The tour failed, and the propmeter turned out to have criminal convictions for dishonesty. He had asked his solicitor to look into the matter, and complained that the solicitor had failed to identify and mention several matters which would have caused him not to invest. Held: There were several factors which should have suggested caution to the plaintiff. It was not a case where he went to his solicitor for and relied solely upon advice on the law, but the advice from the solicitor was only one source of the information upon which he acted. Some apportionment was proper. The court of appeal had correctly set the standard for interefring wit hthe judge;s findings of fact, and there was no reason to disturb tat decision.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Thornton Springer v NEM Insurance Co Ltd and others Gazette, 30 March 2000
30 Mar 2000
QBD

Insurance, Professional Negligence
The claimants were a firm of accountants who had been sued along with one partner for professional negligence. Their insurers agreed to fund the defence, which was successful. The partner was liable, The insurers declined to pay up, asserting that the practice had not been liable within the policy. The court held against the insurers. The claims against the partnership and partner were in substance the same, and fell within the scope of the cover.

 
Cormack and Another v Washbourne, Formerly Trading As Washbourne and Co (A Firm) Times, 30 March 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000
30 Mar 2000
CA

Costs, Professional Negligence, Insurance
Where a claimant succeeded in his claim against a party, it was wrong to award costs against an insurer third party who had supported the defence where such costs exceeded the limit of liability under the financial limit of the indemnity. The insurer had been given conduct of the litigation, and only at a late stage informed the claimant of the limit on indemnity, and after the costs already exceeded that limit. Were these circumstances exceptional? No, the action of the insurers was not sufficiently self-motivated, and had been in good faith.

 
Cottingham and Another v Attey Bower and Jones (A Firm) Times, 19 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EGCS 48; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 591
19 Apr 2000
ChD
Rimmer J
Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A solicitor acted on a purchase in 1993. He asked for but did not receive copies of building regulations consents from 1985. He went ahead anyway. Held: He had been negligent. He had been under a duty to continue the investigation, and to advise his clients that the replies relating to these consents appeared to be misleading. Some consents had been refused, and there remained a small risk of proceedings by the local authority for an injunction under section 36 (6) of the Building Act 1984, even though time limits had expired for other enforcement purposes. A solicitor is generally under a duty to provide specific information or advice, and not to advise on the wisdom of transactions in general. The fact that the claimant would not have purchased the property but for his negligence did not mean that the defendant was liable for every consequences which would not have happened but for the negligence. The loss for which he is responsible will normally be limited to the consequences of the specific information being inaccurate. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defect.
Building Act 1984 36(1) 36(2)

 
Carter v Gamlens (a Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 137
19 Apr 2000
CA
Chadwick, Robert Walker LJJ, Sir Roy Beldam
Professional Negligence
Appeal from award ofmere nominal damages for professional negligence ocurring in conveyancing transaction.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Gibbons and Another v Nelsons (A Firm) and Another; ChD 21-Apr-2000 - Times, 21 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] PNLR 734
 
Mortgage Corporation v Lambert and Co (A Firm) and Another Times, 24 April 2000; [2000] PNLR 820
24 Apr 2000
CA

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence
If it was alleged that a lender could should have been aware of an overvaluation of a property so as to start the limitation clock, the owner must satisfy the court that it was reasonable at the time alleged for the lender have become obliged to obtain a retrospective valuation. That burden was not carried in this case.
Limitation Act 1980 14A(10)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Stephens Innocent v Hill [2001] EWCA Civ 773
11 May 2000
CA
Mummery LJ, Sumner J
Professional Negligence
The claimant appealed from the strike out of his various claimas against his former solicitors.
[ Bailii ]
 
Raja v Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc Times, 16 May 2000
16 May 2000
ChD

Limitation, Professional Negligence
The obligation of a mortgagee having taken possession of a property to obtain a proper price, was an obligation due in equity, and not either under the contract for the loan or as associated with the speciality agreement giving the property in charge. Nevertheless the claim was akin to an action for damages for negligence, and the period of limitation governing the action was six years.
Limitation Act 1980 2

 
Robert Mark Gordon v J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 173; [2000] Lloyds LR PN 605
24 May 2000
CA
Kennedy LJ, Kay LJ
Damages, Limitation, Financial Services, Professional Negligence
The defendant solicitors had negligently advised the claimant in connection with a mortgage scheme he operated for customers. His case was that the defendants had negligently failed to advise him to register under s3 of the 1986 Act. The claimant had to underwrite his customers' losses because of his failure to register. The SIB began its investigation into the claimant's business less than six years before he brought his action against the defendants, and its obligation compensate arose within the limitation period. However, his claim against the defendants was held to be time-barred, because the claimant had first suffered actionable loss, and therefore his cause of action had accrued, when the first customer entered into the mortgage scheme. He claimed that ". . . actual loss is not the same as a serious risk of loss, and … that until at the earliest the claimant signed the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity (which was within the six year period) there was no more than a serious risk of loss." Held: Kennedy LJ put the argument: "Forster's case there was immediate damage to a discernible asset, the plaintiff's equity of redemption, not merely a risk of damage to her assets as a whole." and rejected those submissions relyining on Milton -v- Walker & Stanger. "… it is necessary to identify the loss claimed, and to measure it against the duty allegedly breached. Here the breach of duty relied upon is an alleged failure to advise the claimant how to operate in such a way as not to be likely to attract adverse criticism for the SIB, in consequence of which negligence vulnerable transactions were made which were all completed before the beginning of the six year period, and before the SIB began to investigate."
Financial Services Act 1986 3 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Corbett (As Administrator of the Estate of Miss N A Tresawna (Deceased)) v Bond Pearce (a Firm) Unreported, 25 May 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 805
25 May 2000
ChD
Eady J
Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate
The testatrix had executed her will, but it was left undated pending preparation and execution of a second deed. The will failed, and her executors sought damages from her solicitors for negligence.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Council for Licensed Conveyancers Ex Parte Watson Times, 16 June 2000
16 Jun 2000
QBD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
The dismissal of an action for negligence against a licensed conveyancer for failing to disclose to the client the existence of a right of way, did not prevent his professional body disciplining him out of the same facts and awarding compensation. The test of negligence is not the same as the test of whether he had provided an inadequate professional service.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Sch 8


 
 Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v McBains Cooper; TCC 27-Jun-2000 - [2000] EWHC Technology 85
 
Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick and Others Times, 04 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000; [2000] 1 All ER 515; [2000] 1 WLR 1921; A3/2000/0175; [2000] EWCA Civ 5563
29 Jun 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
The respondent accountants had certified accounts for a firm of solicitors whose dishonest defaults later lead to substantial claims on the compensation fund set up by the claimants. Held: The Law Society who collected funds from the profession at large and would have to pay out compensation were clearly owed a duty of care by the respondents.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Erridge v Coole and Haddock Gazette, 06 July 2000
6 Jul 2000
ChD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A solicitor had advised one party to a joint venture transaction. His advice was incorrect. He witnessed the signature of another partner who was not separately represented. Although the solicitor's advice was negligent, and he should have regarded himself as the solicitor for that party as regards parts of the agreement impacting upon him personally, the party would have proceeded anyway, and could show no loss personal to him.

 
Michael Hyde and Associates Ltd v J D Williams and Co Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 211
6 Jul 2000
CA
Nourse, Ward, Sedley LJJ
Professional Negligence
The defendant architects appealed against a finding of negligence. Held: The appeal was allowed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gregory v Shepherds Gazette, 29 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000
13 Jul 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
An English solicitor, employing a lawyer in another jurisdiction to purchase land for a client was not himself negligent for a failure of that foreign lawyer. The lawyer was not employed as a kind of sub-contractor. Nevertheless the solicitor was negligent in his own act of paying the money across to the seller direct without first enquiring of the foreign lawyer that all proper searches and enquiries had been carried out.
1 Cites


 
Hanif v Middleweeks (a firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 920
19 Jul 2000
CA
Mance LJ, Roch LJ
Professional Negligence, Damages
The claimant sought damages for an opportunity lost by the negligence of the defendant. There were three putative defences to the action that the claimant had lost the chance of bringing. Held. A mathematical approach is not always appropriate in lost opportunity claims. However, the Judge ought not to have disregarded the first two defences (which had high probabilities of failing) and taken only the percentage he assessed for the defence that was most likely to succeed.
In calculating a claimant's lost chance of pursuing litigation against a third party, its task is not normally to determine definitively how that litigation would have been decided. Mance LJ said that there might be circumstances where it was overwhelmingly clear that the prospects of success were nil or 100%.
1 Citers


 
Arthur J S Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 21 July 2000; [2000] UKHL 38; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] 3 WLR 543; [2000] 2 FLR 545; [2000] Fam Law 806; [2002] 1 AC 615
21 Jul 2000
HL
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: "The standard of care to be applied in negligence actions against an advocate is the same as that applicable to any other skilled professional who has to work in an environment where decisions and exercises of judgment have to be made in often difficult and time constrained circumstances. It requires a plaintiff to show that the error was one which no reasonably competent member of the relevant profession would have made." Recent changes in procedure designed to reduce vexatious litigation, and the doctrine against collateral attack should be dealt with by more specific remedies. Experience in foreign common law jurisdictions did not indicate a need for the immunity. The courts can be trusted to differentiate between errors of judgment and true negligence. The section did not create a statutory bar on claims in negligence.
Lord Hope discussed an advocate's duty to the court: "it is necessary to appreciate the extent of that duty and the extent to which the efficiency of our systems of criminal justice depends on it. The advocate’s duty to the court is not just that he must not mislead the court, that he must ensure that the facts are presented fairly and that he must draw the attention of the court to the relevant authorities even if they are against him. It extends to the whole way in which the client’s case is presented, so that time is not wasted and the court is able to focus on the issues as efficiently and economically as possible."
Lord Hoffmann set out two policies which underlie discouragement of relitigation: "The law discourages relitigation of the same issues except by means of an appeal. The Latin maxims often quoted are nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa and interest rei publicae ut finis sit litium. They are usually mentioned in tandem but it is important to notice that the policies they state are not quite the same. The first is concerned with the interests of the defendant: a person should not be troubled twice for the same reason. This policy has generated the rules which prevent relitigation when the parties are the same: autrefois acquit, res judicata and issue estoppel. The second policy is wider: it is concerned with the interests of the state. There is a general public interest in the same issue not being litigated over again. The second policy can be used to justify the extension of the rules of issue estoppel to cases in which the parties are not the same but the circumstances are such as to bring the case within the spirit of the rules."
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 62
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Somatra Limited v Sinclair Roche and Temperley (a Firm) etc; CA 26-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 14 September 2000; Times, 22 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 229; [2000] 1 WLR 2453
 
Gorham and others v British Telecommunications Limited Plc, the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme Standard Life Assurance Company S/S Times, 16 August 2000; Gazette, 05 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 234; [2000] 4 All ER 867; [2000] 1 WLR 2129
27 Jul 2000
CA

Insurance, Professional Negligence
Where an insurance company gave financial advice to a person to whom they owed a duty of care, and they were aware that that person was intending to provide for his dependants, then the insurance company owed the dependants a duty of care also. The principle established in White v Jones should not be narrowly construed. The advice presumed such an interest in the person receiving the advice.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kathleen Magaret Oakes v Mr P W Hopcroft [2000] EWCA Civ 237; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 394
27 Jul 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation
The claimant needed correct medical advice and legal advice before she knew that she had settled her original personal injury claim at too low a figure.
Limitation Act 1980 14A
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council; HL 28-Jul-2000 - Times, 28 July 2000; Gazette, 31 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 47; [2001] 2 AC 619; [2000] 3 WLR 776; [2000] 4 All ER 504; (2000) 150 NLJ 1198
 
Howkins and Harrison (A Firm) v Tyler and Another Times, 04 August 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000; [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 1
3 Aug 2000
CA

Damages, Professional Negligence
Having paid out £400,000 to a lender as damages for a negligent survey valuation after default in repayments by the defendant, the claimant also sought to recover the payment from the defendant under the Act. The application to stay the claim was refused. The Act could only operate for a claim for the same damage. What was lost by the lender from the default was not the same. Compensation was not the same as recovery of a debt, and the claimant could not claim a subrogation for the lender.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Micheal Hyde and Associates Ltd v J D Williams and Co Ltd; CA 4-Aug-2000 - Times, 04 August 2000

 
 Green v Hancocks (A Firm) and Another; ChD 15-Aug-2000 - Times, 15 August 2000
 
Guild (Claims) Ltd v Eversheds (A Firm) and Others Times, 16 August 2000
16 Aug 2000
ChD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A professional adviser's duty not to stand by while a client makes a statement he knows to be false does not extend to the offering of unsought advice as to the wisdom of an act or omission which fell short of such a misleading act. When the advice of a professional was challenged, the standard by which it came to be judged was whether he acted in accordance with practice accepted by a responsible body of skilled practitioners at the time.

 
Leeds and Holbeck Building Society v Ellis (T/A Mark Ellis and Co) [2000] EWCA Civ 416
5 Oct 2000
CA

Professional Negligence
Conveyancing
[ Bailii ]
 
Baldev Singh Mann v Messrs Chetty and Patel [2000] EWCA Civ 267
26 Oct 2000
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Baxall Securities Ltd Norbain SDC Ltd v Sheard Walshaw Partnership [2001] BLR 36; [2000] EWHC Technology 53
30 Oct 2000
TCC
Bowsher QC J
Professional Negligence, Construction

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v National Health Service Litigation Authority [2000] EWHC 564 (QB); [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 90
14 Nov 2000
QBD
Andrew Smith J
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Calver v Westwood Veterinary Group B2/2000/0108
24 Nov 2000
CA

Professional Negligence
The defendants appealed a finding of professional negligence in their handing of a case in which a mare had miscarried. It was claimed that he had failed to spot a retained placenta. The laminitis she then suffered (found caused by negligence) led to a later miscarriage. Held: The expert evidence had been in favour of the defendants. There was insufficient cause to depart from his findings. Appeal allowed.
1 Cites



 
 Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Deloitte Haskins and Sells and others; ComC 4-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWHC 209 (Comm)
 
New Islington and Hackney Housing Association Ltd v Pollard Thomas and Edwards Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 43
8 Dec 2000
TCC
Dyson J
Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Doulat Daryanani v Kumar and Co and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 318
12 Dec 2000
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Johnson v Gore Wood and Co Gazette, 05 January 2001; Times, 20 December 2000; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] UKHL 65; [2001] 2 WLR 72; [2001] 1 All ER 481; [2002] 2 AC 31
14 Dec 2000
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hutton Lord Millett
Damages, Professional Negligence, Company
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company's owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to a limited company, where the loss claimed was over and above that suffered by the company. Damages for distress should not normally be awarded in an action for breach of contract. The public interests in the claimant bringing one action to recover all his losses remained appropriate, but must not be applied mechanically. A settlement in favour of the company, need not release the defendant from an action by the shareholder. Asking whether a plea raised or an issue challenged amounted to an abuse of process required a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not . . It is preferable to ask whether in all the circumstances a party's conduct is an abuse than to ask whether the conduct is an abuse and then, if it is, to ask whether the abuse is excused or justified by special circumstances.
Lord Hutton said: "where a shareholder is personally owed a duty of care by a defendant and a breach of that duty causes him loss, he is not debarred from recovering damages because the defendant owed a separate and similar duty of care to the company, provided that the loss suffered by the shareholder is separate and distinct from the loss suffered by the company. "
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "But Henderson v. Henderson abuse of process, as now understood, although separate and distinct from cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel, has much in common with them. The underlying public interest is the same: that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however, wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in early proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.