Site icon swarb.co.uk

Duchess of Argyll v Beuselinck: ChD 1972

The court found that the plaintiff’s solicitor had not been under a duty to give tax advice in the context of the particular transaction. The performance must be judged in the light of the events known at the time. The court advised against the use of hindsight.
Megarry J said: ‘In this world there are few things that could not have been better done if done with hindsight. The advantages of hindsight include the benefit of having a sufficient indication of which of the many factors present are important and which are unimportant. But hindsight is no touchstone [of negligence]. The standard of care to be expected of professional men must be based on events as they occur, in prospect and not in retrospect . . on any footing, the duty of care is not a warranty of perfection . . a marginal case does not make negligence.’ and ‘hindsight is not the touchstone of negligence.’

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 172

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBrinn and Another v Russell Jones and Walker (A Firm) QBD 12-Dec-2002
Police officers had instructed their solicitor to sue in defamation. By their negligence the chance of a claim was lost. They instructed a second firm of solicitors to claim against the first, but this firm also were negligent. The damages fell to . .
CitedHicks v Russell Jones and Walker (A Firm) ChD 27-Apr-2007
The claimants sought to pursue an action in negligence against their solicitors saying that they had conducted another case negligently, and thereby they had lost their chance in the action, on the basis that the hotel at the centre of the action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Legal Professions

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190234

Exit mobile version