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.
Judges:
Rimmer J
Citations:
Times 19-Apr-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] EGCS 48, [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 591
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79527