The claimant was represented by the respondent firm of solicitors in an action for custody of her children. Through their negligence the children had been removed from the country. She sought damages for the distress of losing her children.
Held: The head of damages was proper and recoverable.
Neuberger J
Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 924, [2004] 1 All ER 657
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – F v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1991
The local authority took children into care, reassuring the parents that they would be returned. They were not.
Held: There was no valid claim for damages for the distress arising from the loss of the company of a child. There was no cause of . .
Cited – Verderame v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc CA 2-Apr-1992
The insurance brokers, acting to arrange insurance for a small private limited company did not owe a duty in tort to the directors of that company personally. Where an action was brought in a tort and in breach of contract, damages could not be . .
Cited – Addis v Gramophone Company Limited HL 26-Jul-1909
Mr Addis was wrongfully and contumeliously dismissed from his post as the defendant’s manager in Calcutta. He sought additional damages for the manner of his dismissal.
Held: It did not matter whether the claim was under wrongful dismissal. . .
Applied – Watts 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 . .
Applied – Farley v Skinner HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surveyor. He had asked the defendant whether the house he was to buy was subject to aircraft noise. After re-assurance, he bought the house. The surveyor was wrong and negligent. A survey would not . .
Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong QBD 1981
The defendant had been involved in a traffic accident. Very shortly before the expiry of the six month time limit, the prosecutor issued a careless driving summons apparently in order to preserve the possibility of a prosecution without yet having . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.193438