Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Professional Negligence - From: 1998 To: 1998

This page lists 89 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Perry v Moysey [1998] PNLR 657
1998


Professional Negligence

1 Citers


 
Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262
1998

Richardson P
Professional Negligence, Health Professions, Commonwealth
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Claims in negligence were made by the natural mother of a child who had been adopted, and also by the child, now an adult, complaining of the process followed in the adoption and also of failure to investigate a complaint made about his treatment when the child was still a child. Held: The social worker's function is one of independent professional judgment, the purpose of which is to facilitate the Family Court's determination of the application. The legislative environment is of considerable relevance to the dual issues of proximity and policy which drive the conventional enquiry into whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in a novel situation. The court struck out the first claim as incompatible with the adoption regime laid down by statute in New Zealand, but by a majority, allowed both the claims under the second head to proceed to trial.
1 Citers


 
M v Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority [1998] Lloyd's Rep Med 157
1998

Judge Garner
Professional Negligence
(Huddersfield County Court) M, aged 17, discovered she was pregnant. She already had a daughter and did not want another child. She attended a senior clinical medical officer for Huddersfield Community Services, at the Health Centre, becoming a patient of the Respondent. Abortion was found appropriate and it was arranged for M to be treated by the Second Defendant, a private surgical hospital. The authority had a long standing contract with the hospital. The doctor wrote to the hospital: "I enclose notes for a patient for whom we are prepared to pay the appropriate fees for an abortion."
M attended the private clinic and underwent a vacuum aspiration of pregnancy, carried out by the Third Defendant. Two and a half months later M discovered that she was still pregnant and that her pregnancy had been of some twenty or twenty weeks duration. She gave birth to a healthy child and sued for negligence. She obtained judgment against the Third Defendant in May 1995 and against the Second Defendant in March 1996, but neither was insured and by 1997 the latter was subject to a winding-up order. As the judge observed "in reality the only prospect of recovering damages lies against [the Authority]". It was accepted that the termination of pregnancy was carried out incompetently. It was accepted that the authority contracted with the hospital, that the Second Defendant should perform the termination of pregnancy. Held: M was under the care of the Authority at all material times and she was its patient. The Authority owed her a non-delegable duty of care.
1 Citers



 
 BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Price Waterhouse (No 2); Orse Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Price Waterhouse (No 2); CA 1998 - [1998] PNLR 564
 
Cancer Research Campaign v Ernest Brown [1997] STC 1425; [1998] PNLR 592
1998


Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence
An executor does not usually owe a duty to advise a beneficiary in connection with the affairs of the beneficiary. Tax avoidance is not an idea that runs naturally or should be attributed to ordinary people or to legal executives in a small firm of high street solicitors.
1 Citers



 
 A and J Fabrications (Batley) Ltd v Grant Thornton and Others; ChD 1998 - Times, 05 August 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1998] 2 BCLC 227
 
M v Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority [1998] LLR(M) 157
1998

Garner J
Professional Negligence
(Huddersfield County Court) The defendant health authority referred the patient to a private hospital for a pregnancy termination. The private hospital was negligent. It proved insolvent and uninsured. The claimant brought the action against the health authority. Held: The health authority was liable for a breach of statutory duty, and a failure to take reasonable care to see that the private hospital was competent. The third basis was as follows: "The plaintiff never left the care of the first defendant. She was its patient. She never had an opportunity to divert from the route of treatment arranged on her behalf. In those circumstances she is entitled in my view to remain in the same position as a patient who remains in house relying upon the expectation of an effective provision of services. There will be all the backing of the authority if things go wrong. There is no need to make enquiries about competence; about standards; about insurance because the umbrella of the authority remains above. The patient who remains in-house will have had that provided."
1 Citers


 
Powell v Boladz [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep Med 116
1998
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Professional Negligence, Health Professions
The plaintiff's son aged 10 died of Addison's Disease which had not been diagnosed. An action against the Health Authority was settled. The parents then brought an action against 5 doctors in their local GP Practice in relation to matters that had taken place post death. The allegations included conspiracy to injuer by unlawful means. Held: The court considered whether the doctors in the practice owed a duty of care. Stuart-Smith LJ: "I propose to consider first whether a sufficient relationship of proximity existed. It must be appreciated that prior to April 17th 1990 although the Plaintiffs were patients of the Defendants in the sense that they were on their register, the only patient who was seeking medical advice and treatment was Robert. It was to him that the Defendants owed a duty of care. The discharge of that duty in the case of a young child will often involve giving advice and instruction to the parents so that they can administer the appropriate medication, observe relevant symptoms and seek further medical assistance if need be. In giving such advice, the Doctor obviously owes a duty to be careful. But the duty is owed to the child not to the parents. As Lord Diplock said in Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 at 890 a "doctor's duty of care, whether he be a general practitioner or consulting surgeon or physician is owed to that patient and none other, idiosyncrasies and all." No duty of care existed.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Bridget Anne Butters v Grimsby and Scunthorpe Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 4
12 Jan 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Halifax Plc v Gould and Swayne (a Firm) Spencer and Fisch (a Firm) Grimmett and Perks Trading As Douglas King Wayne (a Firm) Lawson West (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 9
13 Jan 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
L (a Minor) (By her Father and Next Friend) [1998] EWCA Civ 54
22 Jan 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Leicestershire Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 107; [1998] Lloyd's LR (Med) 77
29 Jan 1998
CA
Roch LJ, Mantell LJ and Sir Patrick Russell
Professional Negligence, Limitation
The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that it might have arisen from the negligence now found. Held: The court looked at whether the claimant was in a position where she should reasonably have been aware of the cause her loss: 'what would the reasonable person have done placed in the situation of the plaintiff?' The court accepted that her "individual characteristics which might distinguish her from the reasonable woman should be disregarded. Thus her fortitude, her lack of any bitterness at becoming a tetraplegic and the determination and devotion she has shown to making herself as independent and useful a member of her family and society as she can, which have surpassed what might be expected, are to be put on one side. " Against this background "there was no basis on which the judge could accept the defendant’s submission that sometime in the 1970’s at the latest, the plaintiff should have taken advice. " She was told in 1984 that she had no possible claim. The defendant had not established constructive knowledge in the plaintiff, and the appeal succeeded.
Limitation Act 1980 11 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Elizabeth Pauk v Camden and Islington Health Authority S Parbhoo [1998] EWCA Civ 144
4 Feb 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Mean and Another v Thomas and Others Gazette, 04 February 1998
4 Feb 1998
QBD

Professional Negligence
Solicitor giving advice to professional land agent that must ensure land was suitable for development was not negligent when covenants were not disclosed.

 
Barazancha v Messrs Pannone Napier and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 157
5 Feb 1998
CA
Potter, May LJJ
Professional Negligence
Application for leave to appeal against strike out of claim for professional negligence as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and as an abuse.
[ Bailii ]
 
Assin N'Dow v Timmis Desai Solicitors [1998] EWCA Civ 156
5 Feb 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Ratcliffe v Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority Exeter and North Devon Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 206; [1998] Lloyd's LR Med 162
11 Feb 1998
CA
Hobhouse LJ, Brooke LJ
Professional Negligence
The plaintiff was given a spinal anaesthetic, but subsequently suffered a serious neurological defect on the right side. The cause was a mystery. The MRI Scan showed a lesion in the thoracic spine which the plaintiff claimed must have been the result of the spinal anaesthetic having been administered at the wrong level. The anaesthetist gave evidence that he had administered it at the lumbar spine. The judge accepted the anaesthetist's evidence and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. Held: The court considered the value of the maxim res ipsa loquitur in professional negligence claims: "Res ipsa loquitur is not a principle of law and it does not relate to or raise any presumption. It is merely a guide to help identify when a prima facie case is being made out. Where expert and factual evidence is being called on both sides at trial its usefulness will normally have been long since exhausted. "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ratcliffe v Plymouth and Torbay Health Authority and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 2000; (1998) 42 BMLR 64; [1998] Lloyds Rep Med 162; [1998] PIQR P170
11 Feb 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (In Liquidation); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (In Liquidation); Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v Price Waterhouse Times, 04 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 236; (1998) PNLR 564; [1998] Lloyd's Rep Bank 85
13 Feb 1998
CA
Neill LJ
Professional Negligence, Banking
The special relationship between an auditor and a bank, meant that a duty of care could extend even to a second bank with its own auditors. In determining whether there had been an assumption of responsibility, the the relevant factors would include (according to the authorities): "(a) the precise relationship between (to use convenient terms) the adviser and the advisee. This may be a general relationship or a special relationship which has come into existence for the purpose of a particular transaction. But in my opinion counsel for Overseas was correct when he submitted that there may be an important difference between the cases where the adviser and the advisee are dealing at arm's length and cases where they are acting "on the same side of the fence.
(b) the precise circumstances in which the advice or information or other material came into existence. Any contract or other relationship with a third party will be relevant.
(c) the precise circumstances in which the advice or information or other material was communicated to the advisee, and for what purpose or purposes, and whether the communication was made by the adviser or by a third party. It will be necessary to consider the purpose or purposes of the communication both as seen by the adviser and as seen by the advisee, and the degree of reliance which the adviser intended or should reasonably have anticipated would be placed on its accuracy by the advisee, and the reliance in fact placed on it.
(d) the presence or absence of other advisers on whom the advisee would or could rely. This factor is analogous to the likelihood of intermediate examination in product liability cases.
(e) the opportunity, if any, given to the adviser to issue a disclaimer."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Berry v Calderdale Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 248
16 Feb 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Health Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Mount v Baker Austin [1998] PNLR 493; [1998] EWCA Civ 277
18 Feb 1998
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Professional Negligence, Damages
The Defendant solicitors had allowed the Plaintiff's claim to be struck out for want of prosecution. The court considered how to calculate the value of the loss of the chance of pursuing the claim: "1. The legal burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that in losing the opportunity to pursue his claim (or defence to counterclaim) he has lost something of value i.e. that his claim (or defence) had a real and substantial rather than merely a negligible prospect of success. (I say "negligible" rather than "speculative" -- the word used in a somewhat different context in Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons [1995] 1WLR 1602 -- lest "speculative" may be thought to include considerations of uncertainty of outcome, considerations which in my judgement ought not to weigh against plaintiff in the present context, that of struck out litigation.)
2. The evidential burden lies on the defendants to show that despite their having acted for the plaintiff in the litigation and charged for their services, that litigation was of no value to their client, so that he lost nothing by their negligence in causing it to be struck out. Plainly the burden is heavier in a case where the solicitors have failed to advise the client of the hopelessness of his position and heavier still where, as here, two firms of solicitors successively have failed to do so. If, of course, the solicitors have advised their client with regard to the merits of his claim (or defence) such advice is likely to be highly relevant.
3. If and insofar as the court may now have greater difficulty in discerning the strength of the plaintiff's original claim (or defence) than it would have had at the time of the original action, such difficulties should not count against him, but rather against his negligent solicitors. It is quite likely that the delay will have caused such difficulty and quite possible, indeed, that that is why the original action was struck out in the first place. That, however, is not inevitable: it will not be the case in particular (a) where the original claim (or defence) turned on questions of law or the interpretation of documents, or (b) where the only possible prejudice from the delay can have been to the other side's case.
4. If and when the court decides that the plaintiff's chances in the original action were more than merely negligible it will then have to evaluate them. That requires the court to make a realistic assessment of what would have been the plaintiff's prospects of success had the original litigation been fought out. Generally speaking one would expect the court to tend towards a generous assessment given that it was the defendants' negligence which lost the plaintiff the opportunity of succeeding in full or fuller measure. To my mind it is rather at this stage than the earlier stage that the principle established in Armory v Delmire (1722) 1 Stra. 505 comes into play."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mount v Barker Austin (a Firm); CA 18-Feb-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 277; (1998) PNLR 493
 
Nationwide Building Society v (L) Bryan Lewis; Alyn Williams (Formerly Partners In the Firm of Bryan Lewis and Co) Gazette, 18 March 1998; Times, 06 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 337
24 Feb 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Employee solicitor held out as partner was not liable in negligence where he was neither involved in the advice nor holding out relied upon
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Walker v Messrs G H Medlicott and Sons (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 349
25 Feb 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Vicky Elizabeth Read v Messrs Tozer (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 451
12 Mar 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Nationwide Building Society Gazette, 25 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 469
25 Mar 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
Professional negligence claim was not compromised by acceptance of sum in full and final settlement where the terms suggested were not offered.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kapfunde v Abbey National Plc and Dr D Daniel and Times, 06 April 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 535; [1999] ICR 1; [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 48
25 Mar 1998
CA
Kennedy LJ
Health Professions, Professional Negligence
A Doctor employed by a potential employer to report on the health of applicants for employment, owed no duty of care to those applicants.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wisniewski (a Minor) v Central Manchester Health Authority; CA 1-Apr-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 596
 
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others v Price Waterhouse Times, 02 April 1998; Gazette, 16 April 1998
2 Apr 1998
ChD
Sir Brian Neill
Professional Negligence, Damages
Damages for negligently conducted audit were not to include sums which would not have been spent if truth had been known and if the company had stopped trading immediately. The court should consider whether also the defendant had had opportunity to issue a disclaimer.
1 Citers


 
Hallatt, Hallatt (a Minor Who Sues By her Mother and Next Friend ) v North West Anglia Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 675
8 Apr 1998
CA

professional Negligence


 
O'Keefe v Harvey-Kemble [1998] EWCA Civ 701
24 Apr 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 O'Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority; CA 30-Apr-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 747; [1998] Lloyds Law Reports: Medical 210
 
Punford v Gilberts Accountants (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 771
5 May 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Hill and Another v Mullis and Peake [1998] EWCA Civ 777; [1999] BCC 325; [1998] EG 79
6 May 1998
CA
Stuart-Smith, Hobhouse, Buxton LJJ
Professional Negligence
Allegation of professional negligence against solicitors and accountants arising from sale of a business and land.
[ Bailii ]
 
Stanley Kenneth Oates and others v Anthony Pitman and Co (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 797
7 May 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Negligent failure to establish planning status.
[ Bailii ]
 
Randall v Hogan-Boyd Solicitors [1998] EWCA Civ 825
12 May 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Boxall v Merton Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 829
13 May 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
UCB Bank Plc v David J Pinder Plc, Hepherd Winstanley and Pugh [1998] EWHC Technology 320
14 May 1998
TCC
Hicks QC HHJ
Professional Negligence
This was an action by a mortgagee against the First Defendant for negligence in advising as to the value of the mortgage security and against the Second Defendants for negligence as the Plaintiff's solicitors. The action against the Second Defendants had been discontinued. The First Defendant, which was in creditors' voluntary liquidation, took no part in the trial but had served a Defence alleging (inter alia) contributory negligence. The Plaintiff attended to prove its case and contended that no effect could be given to the defence of contributory negligence in the First Defendant's absence, whatever the state of the evidence. Held: the issue of contributory negligence, having been pleaded, must be resolved on the evidence, but for that purpose the evidence was that tendered by the Plaintiff, and the Court was under no duty to peruse documents included in the trial bundles but not so tendered. On that basis contributory negligence had not been established in this instance.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Pearce and Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust; CA 20-May-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 865; [1999] PIQR P53

 
 Barclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg and Dean (a Firm); Barclays Bank Plc v Lougher and Others; Barclays Bank Plc v Hopkin John and Co; CA 21-May-1998 - Gazette, 28 May 1998; Gazette, 24 June 1998; Times, 15 June 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 868; [1998] 3 All ER 213; [1999] QB 309

 
 Perrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association); CA 22-May-1998 - Times, 23 June 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 884; [1998] 2 Lloyd's LR 255
 
Palmer v Tees Health Authority and Another Times, 01 June 1998
1 Jun 1998
QBD

Professional Negligence
A Health authority was not liable in negligence for failing to restrict the freedom of a mental health out-patient who had threatened to kill and did so. The threat was not specific enough to allow action.
1 Citers



 
 Derry v Ministry of Defence; QBD 8-Jun-1998 - Times, 08 June 1998
 
Esterhuizen and Another v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc Gazette, 15 July 1998; Times, 10 June 1998
10 Jun 1998
QBD

Legal Professions, Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate
A non-professional will writing agency should be subject to the same standards of professional negligence in drawing up wills as a recognised lawyer. This is necessary to protect members of the public using will writing services. "the process of signature and attestation is not completely straightforward and disaster may ensue if it is not correctly done. Any testator is entitled to expect reasonable assistance without having to ask exprssly for it. It is in my judgment not enough just to leave written instructions with the testator. In ordinary circumstances just to leave written instructions and to do no more will not only be contrary to good practice but also in my view negligent."
1 Cites


 
Phillip John Siddell; Carol Ann Siddell v Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 973
11 Jun 1998
CA

Professional Negligence
Leave to appeal.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Judy Christine Lague v West Kent Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 969
11 Jun 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Watts v Savills; CA 16-Jun-1998 - Gazette, 24 June 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1014
 
Zwebner v Mortgage Corporation Plc; Trustee of Property of Zwebner and Brooks and Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1035; [1998] PNLR 769
18 Jun 1998
CA
Robert Walker, Hobhouse and Waller LJJ
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
The claimant applied for a loan secured against a property owned with his wife. The defendant instructed solicitors who reported on title with an undertaking that documents would be executed before completion. They sent the mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Zwebner to sign, but Mr. Zwebner forged her signature. She now brought proceedings against the defendant saying that the mortgage did not bind her. The defendant claimed against the solicitors in negligence and for breach of contract in failing to comply with the undertaking given in the report on title. The court considered the general nature and scope of a solicitor's duty acting for a lender. They argued that it would be wrong to construe the undertaking that the documents would be "properly executed" as giving rise to a warranty that they had been signed by Mrs. Zwebner in the presence of a witness. This would transfer the entire risk of fraud onto one who was merely providing professional services. The expression "properly executed" should be limited to matters of form and the mechanics of completion. Held. It was difficult to read the undertaking in the way suggested. The consequences of giving weight to the word "properly" were not so unreasonable as to justify a construction which largely disregarded it. The solicitors were in breach of contract, having accepted an unqualified obligation to obtain the signature of Mrs. Zwebner.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Beckford (an Infant By her Mother and Next Friend Alleyne) v Weston; CA 22-Jun-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 1053
 
Stockler; Stockler v Hawker (Trading As Robert Hawker and Associates); Alan Meek Wagstaff and Co Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1088
24 Jun 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Piper v West Kent Health Authority and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1104
29 Jun 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Bradford and Bingley Building Society v Boyce Evans and Sheppard (a Firm) (2) [1998] EWCA Civ 1153
6 Jul 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Mortgage Express Limited v S Newman and Co (a Firm) and Solicitors Indemnity Fund Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1168
7 Jul 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Philip Gerald Stanton; Sylvia Mary Stanton v Brian F Callaghan; Brian F Callaghan and Associates (a Firm); Brian F Callaghan and Partners (a Firm) Gazette, 15 July 1998; Gazette, 03 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1176; [2000] 1 QB 75
8 Jul 1998
CA
Otton LJ, Nourse LJ
Professional Negligence
The defendant, a structural engineer, was retained by the plaintiffs in a claim against insurers for the costs of remedying subsidence of the plaintiffs' house. He advised total underpinning for £77,000, but later while preparing a joint report with the insurers' expert witness, he was persuaded to agree that infilling with polystyrene, at a cost of only some £21,000, would work. The case was settled on that basis, but the plaintiffs then brought an action claiming that their expert's change of advice had been negligent. Held: An expert giving a report for the purposes of proceedings had immunity from negligence since his first duty as an expert was to the court. An actual not a defensive view was needed from him. The protection of the immunity is available even if the trial does not take place.
Nourse LJ said that the extent of an expert witness's immunity from suit was still in course of development and would and should be developed on a case by case basis: ". . . I see no justification for distinguishing between an expert and a lay witness, either on the ground that the expert is usually remunerated for his services or on the ground that he may be less likely than a lay witness to be deterred from giving evidence. Nor would I make any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. An immunity founded on requirement of public policy that witnesses should not be inhibited from giving frank and fearless evidence cannot afford to make distinctions such as these. If they were allowed, it would never be certain that the public policy would not sometimes be put at risk."
Otton LJ said: "immunity is not granted primarily for the benefit of the individuals who seek it. They themselves are beneficiaries of the overarching public interest, which can be expressed as the need to ensure that the administration of justice is not impeded. This is the consideration which should be paramount. And it is not only the conduct of the immediate hearing which we should consider to be the "administration of justice". This is not a narrowly drawn phrase; it is best served by a purposive construction. "
Chadwick LJ summarised the authorities: "(i) an expert witness who gives evidence at a trial is immune from suit in respect of anything which he says in court, and that immunity will extend to the contents of the report which he adopts as, or incorporates in, his evidence; (ii) where an expert witness gives evidence at a trial the immunity which he would enjoy in respect of that evidence is not to be circumvented by a suit based on the report itself; and (iii) the immunity does not extend to protect an expert who has been retained to advise as to the merits of a party's claim in litigation from a suit by the party by whom he has been retained in respect of that advice, notwithstanding that it was in contemplation at the time when the advice was given that the expert would be a witness at the trial if that litigation were to proceed. What, as it seems to me, has not been decided by any authority binding in this court is whether an expert is immune from suit by the party who has retained him in respect of the contents of a report which he prepares for the purpose of exchange prior to trial – say, to comply with directions given under RSC, Ord 38, r 37 - in circumstances where he does not, in the event, give evidence at the trial; either because the trial does not take place or because he is not called as a witness . . In my view, the public interest in facilitating full and frank discussion between experts before trial does require that each should be free to make proper concessions without fear that any departure from advice previously given to the party who has retained him will be seen as evidence of negligence. That, as it seems to me, is an area in which public policy justifies immunity. The immunity is needed in order to avoid the tension between a desire to assist the court and fear of the consequences of a departure from previous advice."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Abbott and Others v Strong and Others; ChD 9-Jul-1998 - Times, 09 July 1998
 
Western Trust and Savings Limited v Strutt and Parker (a Firm) Times, 17 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1191
9 Jul 1998
CA

Professional Negligence
A valuer giving negligent valuation of property could still be liable where the property charged was not identical to the property valued, so long as the differences did not take it outside the reasonable contemplation of the valuer
[ Bailii ]

 
 Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited; CA 21-Jul-1998 - Times, 07 August 1998; Gazette, 29 July 1998; Gazette, 16 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1187; [1999] 1 All ER 400; [1998] EWCA Civ 1249
 
Atwell v Perr and Co and Another Times, 27 July 1998
27 Jul 1998
ChD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Counsel advising during conduct of case has immunity but a wrongful advice on appeal was outside his immunity. Work done before a hearing constituting the formulation of case was within the immunity from suit.
1 Cites


 
Maes Finance Limited Mac No 1 Limited v Leftleys (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1298
27 Jul 1998
CA

Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence
It was a proper exercise of a discretion by a judge to decide to try five similar cases together. Admissibility questions on one case becoming admissible in others could be set aside if there was a sufficiently similar factual basis alleged.
[ Bailii ]
 
Halifax Plc v Gould and Swayne and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1311
28 Jul 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Mond v Hyde and Another Times, 29 July 1998
29 Jul 1998
CA

Professional Negligence
An official receiver acting in the course of the administration of a bankrupt's estate was immune from an action for negligent misstatement on public policy grounds. Re-assurance that damages would be disclaimed was ineffective

 
Helen Carr-Glynn v Frearsons (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1325; [1999] Ch 326; [1998] 4 All ER 225
29 Jul 1998
CA
Chadwick LJ
Professional Negligence
The solicitors had failed to advise the testator to issue a notice of severance of a joint tenancy, with the result that the house passed outside the will. Held: The plaintiff did have a remedy. "The duty owed by the solicitors to the testator is a duty to take care that effect his given to his testamentary intentions… The duty owed by the solicitors to the specific legatees is not a duty to take care to ensure that the specific legatee receives his legacy. It, also, is a duty to take care to ensure that effect is given to the testator's testamentary intentions. The loss from which the specific legatee is to be saved harmless is the loss from which he will suffer if the effect is not given to the testator's testamentary intentions."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lettice Concordie Johnson and Eleanor Doreen Simmons v Dr T M John and Waltham Forest Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1371
31 Jul 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Costs

[ Bailii ]
 
Northern Rock Building Society v Hazel Archer; Brunning Hazel Archer v Hickmotts (Formerly, Hickmott, Elmhirst, Hargan and Co ) (a Firm); Hazel Archer v Hickmotts [1998] EWCA Civ 1375
31 Jul 1998
CA

Undue Influence, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Connolly-Martin v Davis Times, 17 August 1998
17 Aug 1998
ChD

Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
The claimant appealed against the striking out of her claim for negligence against counsel for her opponent who had signed a consent order purporting to give an undertaking from his client when in fact the client did not consent. Held: The appeal succeeded. A barrister was liable in negligence and breach of warranty to his lay client where he gave an undertaking to the court without first obtaining his client's express authority to do so.
1 Citers


 
Sasea Finance Ltd (In Liquidation) v KPMG (A Firm) Times, 25 August 1998
25 Aug 1998
ChD

Professional Negligence
Where an auditor had negligently failed to identify the insolvency of a company and to warn against payment of dividends, the auditor was liable in damages for dividends wrongly paid.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
2 Sep 1998

Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ
Professional Negligence
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence - Causation - Failure to warn of inherent risk of operation about which patient had specifically inquired - Plaintiff would have inevitably required the same operation at some time in the future but would have postponed the operation performed if properly warned - Surgery was performed with due skill and care but risk materialised - Whether there was a causal connection between failure to warn and plaintiff's physical injury - Whether damage suffered was physical injury or loss of chance. Negligence - Damages - Whether damages should be discounted to account for possible future events. Medicine - Medical practitioners - Failure to warn of inherent risk of operation about which patient had specifically inquired.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Hurst v Penningtons (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1420
3 Sep 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Anne Worby Rachel Worby David Worby v Jonathan Arnold Rosser [1998] EWCA Civ 1438
17 Sep 1998
CA

Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Frost v James Finlay Bank Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1441
17 Sep 1998
CA

Banking, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan v Thompsons Solicitors [1998] EWCA Civ 1580
21 Oct 1998
CA

Professional Negligence
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Arkless (a Minor Suing By Her Mother and Next Friend Diane Arkless) v Leicestershire Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1589
22 Oct 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Richard David Lewis Showan and Sheila Anne Showan v Elizabeth Rosemary Yapp and Messrs Glanvilles Damant (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1668
3 Nov 1998
CA

Trusts, Land, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Pamela Helen Phelps v Mayor and Burgesses London Borough of Hillingdon Times, 09 November 1998; Gazette, 25 November 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1686; [1999] 1 WLR 500; [1998] ELR 38
4 Nov 1998
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Professional Negligence, Education, Limitation
The plaintiff claimed damages for the negligent failure of an educational psychologist employed by a local authority to identify that the plaintiff was dyslexic. Held: An educational psychologist has no duty of care to a child, as opposed to her employer, in failing to diagnose dyslexia which was not an injury but a congenital condition: (Evans LJ) "dyslexia is not itself an injury and I do not see how failure to ameliorate or mitigate its effects can be an injury." No economic loss damages occurred until the psychologist adopted a particular duty to the child.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Margaret Patricia Briody (Formerly Moore) v St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1682
4 Nov 1998
CA

Limitation, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Frazer Harris v Scholfield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) Gazette, 04 November 1998; [1998] 2 FLR 679
4 Nov 1998
FD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Barristers and solicitors have the same immunity from suit in respect of advocacy, but a solicitor may still be liable after settlement at door of court where the substantial fault lay in matters preceding that hearing and preparation of the case.

 
Patel and Patel v Hooper and Jackson [1999] 1 WLR 1792; [1998] EWCA Civ 1734
10 Nov 1998
CA
Nourse, Ward,Mantell LJJ
Damages, Professional Negligence
Dispute about the amount of damages to be awarded against surveyors who made a negligent overvaluation of a house for mortgage purposes on which the purchasers also relied. The surveyors expressed the opinion that the value of the house was in the region of £90,000, whereas its actual value was £65,000. The purchasers say that the house was uninhabitable and, further, that they were unable to resell it.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kieron Brady v Sunderland Association Football Club Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1780
17 Nov 1998
CA

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
The plaintiff appealed refusal of his claim for damages. He had suffered injury whilst training for football, and alleged negligence agains the club and its doctors. He accepted that his contract imposed no higher duty than the standard one. The judge had found the condition to be one which a doctor might see once in his lifetime. Held: The appeal was dismissed: "Only in rare cases will this court do so either because the judge has misunderstood some important evidence, misconstrued or overlooked documentary evidence inconsistent with his findings or for some other reason this court is convinced that he has reached the wrong conclusion notwithstanding his advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses."
[ Bailii ]
 
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd v John Clarkson Spink [1998] EWCA Civ 1783
17 Nov 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert James Walker v Geo H Medlicott and Son (a Firm) Times, 25 November 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1806; [1999] 1 All ER
19 Nov 1998
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir Christopher Slade
Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence, Damages
The claimant said that the defendant solicitor had negligently failed to include in the will a specific devise of property in his favour. Held: A beneficiary who alleged negligent failure of a will draftsman to include a gift to him in a will should first establish whether rectification of the will was available, and only after failure then seek to claim under professional negligence. The solicitors had failed to carry out the testator's express instructions, and a claim by a disappointed beneficiary might stand. However the claimant here also could seek rectification of the will. The recovery of damages against a negligent solicitor had the effect of enabling the beneficiaries under the Will to retain "adventitious benefits", and accordingly fairness required that the beneficiaries share the cost of putting things right by means of rectification proceedings.
Administration of Justice Act 1970 20
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Leppington v Coal Authority Gazette, 25 November 1998
25 Nov 1998
QBD

Professional Negligence
A request to give details of mining activities within the vicinity of a property had no meaning save from the purpose of its use. Nearby shafts or adits which posed no threat to the stability of the property had been properly omitted from report.

 
Small v Hodgson [1998] EWCA Civ 1869
27 Nov 1998
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
James Finlay Bank Limited v Frost [1998] EWCA Civ 1867
27 Nov 1998
CA

Banking, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Patel and Another v Hooper and Jackson (A Firm) Times, 03 December 1998
3 Dec 1998
CA

Professional Negligence
The measure of damages for a negligent survey for mortgage purposes and relied upon by purchase was the general diminution of value together with any particular further losses, since if the claimant had been properly advised would have purchased other similar costing property.

 
Linda Anne Roberts v Adrian John Winbow (3) Times, 12 January 1999; Gazette, 27 January 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1917
4 Dec 1998
CA
Lord Justice Roch, And Mrs Justice Hale
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor's slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, but the main part of which is not to the plaintiff’s knowledge attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, does the three year period commence when the plaintiff has knowledge that the lesser part of the injury is attributable, or does the three year period start only when the plaintiff has knowledge that the greater part of the injury is attributable? The discovery of a cause of action was at the point where a plaintiff discovered that a lesser part of her injuries were attributable to the cause, not later when the majority was attributed, and limitation ran accordingly.
Limitation Act 1980 11(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Byrne and Byrne v Hall Pain and Foster (a Firm) and others Times, 08 January 1999; Gazette, 03 February 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1939; [1999] 1 WLR 1849
11 Dec 1998
CA
Simon Brown, Otton, Schiemann LJJ
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The cause of action in an action for professional negligence in purchase of land ran from the date of exchange of contracts not completion, and the limitation period was to be calculated accordingly.
Limitation Act 1980
[ Bailii ]
 
Arthur J S Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons etc Times, 18 December 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1943; [1999] 3 WLR 873; [1998] EWCA Civ 3539; [1999] 1 FLR 536; [1999] PNLR 374; [1999] 2 FCR 193; [1998] NPC 162; [1999] Fam Law 215; [1999] Lloyd's Rep PN 47
14 Dec 1998
CA
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Mottitt LJ, Waller LJ
Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
The court considered the limits on liability for professional negligence for lawyers in conduct associated with litigation, but outside the courtroom. Held: Though the court must balance the need for protection against negligence by lawyers with the need to avoid re-litigation of issues settled by courts, case law dictates some exemptions, but these must be limited and any doubt resolved against the practitioner.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Siddell and Siddell v Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm) (Lead Action) Follows and Follows v Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm); CA 18-Dec-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 1959; [1999] PNLR 511
 
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council v Shaw [1998] EWHC 2007 (QB); (1999) 1 LGLR 385; [2000] BLGR 9
21 Dec 1998
QBD
Bell J
Local Government, Employment, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.