The plaintiff and a Mr and Mrs Bodman agreed to buy a house. The plaintiff intended to live on the first floor and the Bodmans on the ground floor. The solicitor should have advised them to convey the freehold into their joint names and then to grant separate long leases of the first floor to the plaintiff and the ground floor to the Bodmans respectively. Instead he simply had the house conveyed into their joint names on trust for sale. The plaintiff obtained neither security of tenure nor any interest which she could separately dispose of and, when subsequently the Bodmans decided to move out and sell the house by enforcing the trust for sale, she had to expend further money purchasing the freehold.
Held: Her cause of action accrued at the time of the original transaction rather than at the later time when the Bodmans decided to enforce the trust for sale. Templeman LJ said: ‘Damages were suffered on that date because the plaintiff did not receive the long lease and joint tenancy which the solicitors should have secured for her. She secured instead some other different interest. She has suffered damage because she did not get what she should have got.’ The court did not compare the value of the interest that the claimant in fact received with the amount that she paid for it. The mere fact that ‘she did not get what she should have got’ was sufficient to amount to damage.
Judges:
Templeman LJ
Citations:
[1982] 126 SJ 593, [1982] CLY 1845, CA Transcript 155 of 1982
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Forster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
Cited by:
Cited – Daniels v Thompson CA 18-Mar-2004
The executor brought an action against the solicitor who had advised his client in connection with the transfer of her house in which she was to continue to live, saying he should have advised her that the gift would not protect her from Inheritance . .
Applied – D W Moore and Co Ltd v Ferrier CA 1988
The company took in a new director and shareholder, and relied upon their solicitors to draft a covenant to restrain him competing within a set time of leaving the company. The covenant turned out to be ineffective. The defendant solicitors replied . .
Cited – DW Moore and Co Ltd v Ferrier CA 1988
A solicitor was instructed to prepare an agreement providing for the introduction of a new working director into an insurance broking business carried on by a company. His instructions called for the new director to enter into a restrictive covenant . .
Cited – Tabarrok v E D C Lord and Co (A Firm) CA 14-Feb-1997
The appellant wanted to open a pizza restaurant. He and his partners acquired a company for the purpose, which was to take a lease of premises. They sought advice from the defendants who, they said, failed to advise them of the need to be aware of . .
Cited – Knapp v Ecclesiastical Insurance Group Plc and Another CA 30-Oct-1997
A claim in negligence was brought against insurance brokers for failing to advise the claimant of certain matters with the result that an insurance policy entered into by the claimant was voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The claimant . .
Cited – Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Limitation
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196069