Bacciottini and Another v Gotelee and Goldsmith (A Firm): CA 18 Mar 2016

A property subject to a planning condition was purchased by the appellant under the advice of the respondent, who failed to notify him of the existence of a planning condition. The judge had awarded the claimant pounds 250 being the cost of the successful application for the removal of the condition. The claimant sought pounds 100,000, being the difference in value before the application succeeded.
Held: The appeal failed. The later removal of the condition meant that the claimant had not suffered the losses alleged.

David, Lloyd Jones, Underhill LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 170, [2016] WLR(D) 152, [2016] 4 WLR 98, [2016] PNLR 22
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
CitedLivingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .
CitedBritish Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
CitedPhilips v Ward CA 1956
The Plaintiff had relied on a negligent survey to purchase a substantial Elizabethan property and land. The report did not mention that the timbers of the house were badly affected by death watch beetle and worm so that the only course left to him . .
CitedCounty Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Alan R Pulver and Co (a Firm) CA 1987
The claimant sought damages after his negligent solicitors had saddled him with a ruinous underlease. They had had to buy themselves out of the lease. The court considered the date at which damages were to be calculated.
Held: The starting . .
CitedHussey v Eels CA 1990
Profits made on development were not deductible
The purchasers of a property for a price of 53,250 pounds had relied on a negligent misrepresentation that the property had not been the subject of subsidence. In fact it had. The cost of the required works was 17,000 pounds, which they could not . .
CitedWatts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
CitedWapshott v Davis Donovan and Co CA 1996
The defendant solicitors had negligently in 1986 failed to advise purchasers that there was no good title to part (an extension over an adjoining property) of a leasehold flat which they were buying. The problem came to light in 1988 when they . .
CitedKennedy v K B Van Emden and Co; Jordan v Gershon Young Finer and Green and Similar CA 27-Mar-1996
A solicitor failed in 1983 to advise a purchaser of the fact that premium she was paying on purchasing a leasehold flat was unlawful under the Act, and would be unrecoverable on the sale. Before trial however, in 1989 the law changed and the premium . .
CitedGardner v Marsh and Parsons (a Firm), Dyson CA 2-Dec-1996
Damages awarded against a surveyor for a negligent survey which had missed certain defects, were not to be reduced for repairs later carried out by the landlord at his own expense. The trial judge decided to award damages reflecting the difference . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Professional Negligence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.561202