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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 67 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm); CA 2002 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1743; [2002] 2 WLR 1279; [2002] QB 1312; [2002] PNLR 2; [2002] PIQR P20
 
Hatswell v Goldbergs (a firm) [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 359
2002
CA

Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages from his solicitors where his claim for medical negligence was struck out for delay. The High Court declared his claim as of no value. Held: The underlying claim in medical negligence was made simply impossible by a complete and determinative line of medical notes the effect of which meant that the claim was bound to fail and therefore had no value at all.
1 Citers


 
Panther v Wharton and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 114
28 Jan 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Ezekiel v Lehrer [2002] EWCA Civ 16; [2002] Lloyd's Law Rep PN 260
30 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Mr Justice Harrison
Legal Professions, Professional Negligence, Limitation
The applicant claimed that his solicitor had been negligent with regard to the execution of a mortgage. The solicitor said his claim was time barred. The claimant said the solicitor had hidden the true situation from him, and the solicitor replied that he had merely refused to answer a question put to him, but had instead advised him to take independent advice. The claimant appealed a finding against him. Held: The claimant asserted that he had learned of the facts, then forgotten them until five years later. He could not claim to have been unaware of them so as to extend the limitation period.
Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Petersen v Personal Petersen (Deceased), Representative of [2002] EWCA Civ 194
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice May Sir Murray Stuart Smith
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
The claim was against a solicitor for negligence. The claimant had purchased a property in respect of which there was an unsettled dispute, He claimed that the solicitor had accepted a condition under which he accepted a proportion of the liability for the action. The estate of the client now appealed a finding of no damages for the one head of liability allowed. Held: The court must examine the scope of the relevant duty by reference to the kind of damage from which the solicitor must take care to save the plaintiff harmless. The transaction was entirely neutral as to the value of the assets eventually held by the estate. The appeal failed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Christchurch Pavilion Partnership No 1 and Others v Deloitte and Touche Tohmatsu Trustee Company Limited; PC 4-Feb-2002 - [2002] UKPC 4
 
Richardson v Morton and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 124
5 Feb 2002
CA
Aldous, Mantell, Hale LJJ
Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Jones v Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 182
6 Feb 2002
CA
Tuckey LJ
Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Nichols (T/A Redman Nichols) [2002] EWCA Civ 262
18 Feb 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
R v R [2002] EWCA Civ 409
19 Feb 2002
CA
Ward, Chadwick LJJ
Damages, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Watson and Another v Ian Snipe and Co [2002] EWCA Civ 293
21 Feb 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Dookwah v Pulsford [2002] EWCA Civ 376
8 Mar 2002
CA
Latham LJ
Professional Negligence
An application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Holder and Another v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd [2002] EWHC 482 (TCC)
11 Mar 2002
TCC

Professional Negligence
Negligent survey
[ Bailii ]

 
 Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and others; ChD 20-Mar-2002 - [2002] EWHC 461 (Ch)
 
Channon v Lindley Johnstone (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 353; [2002] Lloyds Law Rep PN 342
20 Mar 2002
CA
Henry, Potter, Judge LJJ
Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Khan v R M Falvey and Co (a Firm) Times, 12 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 400; [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 369; [2002] PNLR 28
22 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages from his former solicitors for failing to act to avoid his case being struck out. The second action was itself delayed, and the defendants asserted that the cause of action occurred not when his claim was actually struck out, but at the time when it could have been struck out. Held: "where a tort is actionable only on proof of damage, the cause of action is not complete and time does not begin to run for the purposes of statutory limitation until actual damage occurs." The cause of action accrued on the occurrence of the first item of material loss. Damage in a claim for pure financial loss arose before the action was actually dismissed, and limitation ran accordingly.
Chadwick LJ said: "Typically, the effect of cumulative delay has been that it becomes increasingly difficult to resist an application to strike out based on the contention that it is no longer possible to have a fair trial. Although it may be possible to say in such cases that before a certain date the claim is not vulnerable to being struck out, and after another and later date it was so vulnerable, there would usually be a period of some months in respect of which there is room for a legitimate difference of view. But what can be said with some confidence is that during that period the value of the claim is diminishing as its vulnerability to strike out increases. It seems to me that once the action has entered that period it is impossible to say that damage has not occurred as a consequence of the previous delay. It is no answer that the damage may be difficult to quantify."
Schiemann LJ said: "By the phrase "amenable to be struck out" the pleader intended to convey that after 1990 there was no arguable defence to an application to strike out. This is common ground. On that basis the claimant had suffered damage from the defendant's negligence by, at the latest, January 1, 1991 and his cause of action had arisen then. What had been (let us assume) a right of action against the debtor which was worth something, had become a right of action which was worth nothing. All the alleged negligence by the solicitor had occurred by then. The present action was not started until more than six years later. In those circumstances it is time barred."
Sir Murray Stuart-Smith referred to the judgment of Hobhouse LJ in Hopkins v Mackenzie and said of it: "I share Hobhouse LJ's difficulties. A claimant cannot defeat the statute of limitations by claiming only in respect of damage which occurs within the limitation period, if he has suffered actual damage from the same wrongful acts outside that period."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shirley and others v D J Freeman (A Firm) and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 575
18 Apr 2002
CA
Keene LJ
Professional Negligence
Application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Car Crash Line Ltd and Another v Branton Edwards (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 634
18 Apr 2002
CA
Brooke LJ, Kay LJ, Sir Christopher Staughton
Professional Negligence

Consumer Credit Act 1974
[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Colin Watson and Co (A Firm) and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 698
19 Apr 2002
CA

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
Second appeal against refusal to allow joinder of additional party.
[ Bailii ]
 
Joel v Langley and Partners [2002] EWCA Civ 523
23 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Longmore And Sir Martin Nourse
Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages from the defendants in respect of their advice as chartered accountants on the sale of shares in a private company. He lost the chance to claim retirement relief, by retiring as a director before agreement was reached on the purchase of his shares. The accountants had acted for him in his tax matters, but said he had declined to advise on the retirement because of his lack of independence. Held: Where a judge came to a conclusion based upon the demeanor of the parties, it must be rare for an appellate court to set aside that judgement. In this case, the judge had failed to explain his reasoning. Here however the judge's reasoning was clearly against the weight of evidence and wrong. The defendant had acted in the matter. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was to be remitted for further hearings.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 28(1) 163
[ Bailii ]

 
 Cape and Dalgleish v Fitzgerald and others; HL 25-Apr-2002 - [2002] UKHL 16
 
Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm) Times, 07 May 2002; [2002] UKHL 18; [2003] 1 AC 384; [2002] 2 WLR 1107; [2002] 19 EGCS 146; (2002) 81 Con LR 25; [2002] 2 All ER 641; [2002] PNLR 25; [2003] 1 CLC 101; [2002] 19 EGCS 146; 81 Con LR 25; [2003] 1 CLC 101
25 Apr 2002
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote
Limitation, Professional Negligence
An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should extend the limitation period. Held: Brocklesby was wrongly decided. Section 32 should deprive a defendant of his limitation defence where either he took active steps to conceal his failure, or the failure itself was deliberate and the concealment might not be discovered for sometime. Where the failing was non-deliberate negligence, a failure to disclose was not concealment. Deliberate commission did not require unconscionable behaviour, but was still to be contrasted with behaviour which was accidental, or inadvertent.
Lord Millettt said: "As I have explained, in enacting the 1980 Act Parliament substituted "deliberate concealment" for "concealed fraud". This is a different and more appropriate concept. It cannot be assumed that the law remained the same. But reference to the old law explains why Parliament enacted section 32(2) and did not rely on section 32(1)(b) alone to cover the whole ground. With all reference to fraud or conscious impropriety omitted, there was an obvious risk that "deliberate concealment" might be construed in its natural sense as meaning "active concealment" and not as embracing mere non-disclosure. Section 32(2) was therefore enacted to cover cases where active concealment should not be required. But such cases were limited in two respects: first, the defendant must have been guilty of a deliberate commission of a breach of duty; and secondly, the circumstances must make it unlikely that the breach of duty will be discovered for some time.
Given that section 32(2) is (or at least may be) required to cover cases of non-disclosure rather than active concealment, the reason for limiting it to the deliberate commission of a breach of duty becomes clear. It is only where the defendant is aware of his own deliberate wrongdoing that it is appropriate to penalise him for failing to disclose it.
In my opinion, section 32 deprives a defendant of a limitation defence in two situations: (i) where he takes active steps to conceal his own breach of duty after he has become aware of it; and (ii) where he is guilty of deliberate wrongdoing and conceals or fails to disclose it in circumstances where it is unlikely to be discovered for some time. But it does not deprive a defendant of a limitation defence where he is charged with negligence if, being unaware of his error or that he has failed to take proper care, there has been nothing for him to disclose."
Lord Scott said: "If the claimant can show that the defendant knew he was committing a breach of duty, or intended to commit the breach of duty - I can discern no difference between the two formulations; each would constitute, in my opinion, a deliberate commission of the breach - then, if the circumstances are such that the claimant is unlikely to discover for some time that the breach of duty has been committed, the facts involved in the breach are taken to have been deliberately concealed for subsection (1)(b) purposes.
Morritt LJ said, in [Brocklesby v Armitage & Guest (Note) [2002] 1 WLR 598], that in general a person is assumed to know the legal consequences of his actions and that, therefore, if an act has been done intentionally, the actor's unawareness of its legal consequences would be immaterial and no defence. The premise is, in my opinion, much too wide to constitute a satisfactory approach to construction of a statutory provision such as section 32(2). A person may or may not know that an act of his or an omission to do or say something or other constitutes a breach of tortious or contractual duty. His knowledge or lack of it may well be immaterial to the question whether a cause of action for which he is liable has accrued to the person injured by the act or omission. But that is no reason at all why Parliament, in prescribing the circumstances in which the person injured by the act or omission can escape from a Limitation Act defence, should not distinguish between the case where the actor knows he is committing a breach of duty and the case where he does not. The clear words of section 32(2) - "deliberate commission of a breach of duty" - show that Parliament has made that distinction.
It follows that, in my opinion, the construction of section 32(2) adopted in the Brocklesby case was wrong."
Limitation Act 1980 32(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Weatherburn v Joplings (A Firm); CA 25-Apr-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 631
 
Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (A Firm) [2002] EWHC 776 (Ch)
3 May 2002
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Hart
Professional Negligence
The respondent firm acted on behalf of the claimant's companies in land transactions. An option had been taken to purchase land, and he instructed the defendants to exercise it. The landowner claimed the notice to exercise the option was invalidly served. By the time the issue was resolved the land had again fallen in value. The respondents argued that the losses incurred by the claimant personally rather than by his company's were the result of his business decisions. The respondents also argued that they owed any duties to their company client rather than the claimant in person. In this case because of the origin and nature of the original instructions such a duty did exist. However the claimant failed to establish that several heads of losses did flow from the negligence of the defendants.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWHC 1051 (Ch); [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 379; [2001] EWHC 1051 (Ch); [2003] EWHC 9026 (Costs); [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 508; [2003] 2 Costs LR 153; [2002] CP Rep 59
9 May 2002
Chd
Lightman J
Professional Negligence, Costs
The claimant solicitor, had instructed the defendant, a barrister, to represent him in a civil claim. He sought had damages for alleged negligence. He had agreed that the action could not proceed, and the court had to decide the costs. He resisted the defendant's claim for costs saying that he had refused arbitration or mediation. Held. The professional negligence pre-action protocol expected a party to explain why he refused mediation. That heavy costs had already been incurred was not a good reason, and nor was the fact that the allegation was of professional negligence. However: "The critical factor in this case, in my view, is whether, objectively viewed, a mediation had any real prospect of success. If mediation can have no real prospect of success of a party may, with impunity, refuse to proceed to mediation on this ground. But refusal is a high risk course to take, for if the court find that there was a real prospect, the party refusing to proceed to mediation may, as I have said, be severely penalised. Further, the hurdle in the way of a party refusing to proceed to mediation on this ground is high, for in making this objective assessment of the prospects of mediation, the starting point must surely be the fact that the mediation process itself can and does often bring about a more sensible and more conciliatory attitude on the part of the parties than might otherwise be expected to prevail before the mediation, and may produce a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses by each party of his own case and of that of his opponent, and a willingness to accept the give and take essential to a successful mediation. What appears to be incapable of mediation before the mediation process begins often proves capable of satisfactory resolution later."
In this case the claimant was so seriously disturbed that he was fixated on the claim and incapable of a balanced evaluation. The defendant should not be refused his costs.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Oliver Fisher (A Firm) v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)
10 May 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Scott Baker
Legal Aid, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
Gilliatt A solicitors' firm had been paid for work done in a case by the Legal Services Commission. The LSC had a right to a statutory charge against a property which had been preserved as a result of the proceedings. The solicitors should have reported to the LSC that they had recovered the property by December 1999. In February 2000 the firm applied to have the legal aid certificate discharged. It was not until August 2000 that they made the report to the LSC about the recovery of property giving rise to the statutory charge. The LSC did not actually receive the report until mid September. The LSC then applied to register a caution against the property. In the meantime the litigant had put the property on the market and a prospective purchaser had lodged an official search with the land registry. The upshot was that the purchaser's application to register title had priority over the LSC's application to register a charge. The property was transferred to the purchasers. By the time the LSC were told their charge had not been registered, the solicitors had been paid and the litigant had been paid by the purchaser. The LSC then tried to claw back the money paid out for costs from other sums claimed by the solicitors in respect of different cases. Held: Despite the fact that the solicitors had not done everything they should have done promptly, there was no actual power, on a construction of the regulations on the part of the LSC to take back the money.
Scott Baker J said: "[Counsel for the Commission] submits that . . Section 4(1)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 gives the defendants a statutory power to operate a running account. This however does not in my judgment give a right to relocate or move money that has been earned and paid in case 'A' to case 'B' or to recoup money."
Legal Aid Act 1988 4(1)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Boateng v Hughmans (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 593; [2002] Lloyds Reports PN 449
10 May 2002
CA
Mummery, Latham LJJ, Sir Christopher Slade
Professional Negligence, Damages
The court was asked: "What has to be proved by the claimant in a case where the negligence of his solicitor has consisted of the failure to give him proper advice, in order to establish a sufficient causal link between the solicitor's negligence and the loss which he has sustained and thus entitle him to substantial damages?" Held: Sir Christopher Slade said: "It is by now trite law that it does not suffice for a claimant who seeks to recover substantial damages arising out of his solicitors' failure to give him proper advice as to the risks of a proposed transaction to show that such failure occurred and that he suffered loss under the transaction. In such a case, it cannot be presumed that the negligent solicitor caused the loss. The claimant has to prove a connection, sometimes called a 'causal link', between the negligence and the loss which justifies making the solicitor pay substantial damages. Simple logic requires that, to show such causal link, he must first satisfy the court as to what action, if any, he would have taken to avoid the loss if proper advice had been given. If he fails to satisfy the court on this point, he can recover no more than nominal damages. Even if he satisfies the court that, in the events which happened, the loss would have been avoided if relevant advice had been given, the court will still have to decide whether the loss suffered was in fact caused by the failure to give such advice."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (a Firm) Times, 06 June 2002; Gazette, 06 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 723; [2002] Lloyds Rep PN 500
22 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Walker LJ
Legal Professions, Professional Negligence, Contract
The firm of solicitors acted for both parties in a conveyancing transaction, in a situation when they were permitted to do so. The firm had previously acted for one party in a case where he had been convicted of a crime. The other party said the solicitors had a duty to them to disclose this fact about the other party. Held: The solicitors were not under a duty to disclose to their client something which had come to their knowledge in an unrelated earlier transaction. The duty of disclosure depended upon the extent of the retainer. He had a duty to keep confidential information derived from an earlier transaction. If a solicitor acted for two parties, he may become obliged to disclose to the other information obtained in the course of that retainer, and could not excuse his duty to one by reference to the duty to the other.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Frost v James Finlay Bank Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 667
23 May 2002
CA

Banking, Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages from the respondent bank for negligence in the arrangements to loan money to her for the development of property. The loan was completed despite the absence of confirmation of insurance. The development was halted when structural damage was found. The borrowings spiraled out of control. She alleged that the bank had failed to disclose the defects discovered. Had the bank taken on a duty in advising her to change insurers, and thus assuming the duties of a broker, which it then failed. The bank appealed. Held: The claim of a duty of care was not properly pleaded, nor supported in evidence. The appeal must be allowed.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Afshar v Chester; CA 27-May-2002 - Times, 13 June 2002; Gazette, 18 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 724; [2003] QB 356; [2002] 3 All ER 552; [2002] 3 WLR 1195; 67 BMLR 66

 
 Moy v Pettman Smith (A Firm); CA 19-Jun-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 875; [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 513
 
Credit Lyonnais Sa (A Body Corporate) v Russell Jones and Walker (A Firm) Times, 08 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1310 (Ch)
2 Jul 2002
ChD
Laddie J
Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages for professional negligence against the defendant solicitors. A corporate lawyer had been assigned to deal with a property matter, and he had failed to appreciate the need to comply strictly with time conditions in a break clause. Held: Although the professions were not the insurers of their clients, the defendants had been negligent in this case in allowing a solicitor to act in a matter in which he was not competent and capable. "A solicitor is not a general insurer against his client’s legal problems. His duties are defined by the terms of the agreed retainer . . . the solicitor has only to expend time and effort in what he has been engaged to do and for which the client has agreed to pay." However: "if, in the course of doing that for which he is retained, he becomes aware of a risk or a potential risk to the client, it is his duty to inform the client. In doing that he is neither going beyond the scope of his instructions nor is he doing "extra" work for which he is not to be paid. He is simply reporting back to the client on issues of concern which he learns of as a result of, and in the course of, carrying out his express instructions . . . if a dentist is asked to treat a patient’s tooth and on looking at the latter’s mouth he notices that an adjacent tooth is in need of treatment it is his duty to warn the patient accordingly. So too, if, in the course of carrying out instructions within his area of competence, a lawyer notices or ought to notice a problem or risk for the client, of which it is reasonable to assume that the client may not be aware, the lawyer must warn him."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A v Bottrill [2002] UKPC 44
9 Jul 2002
PC

Commonwealth, Damages, Professional Negligence
PC (New Zealand) The defendant was a pathologist who carried out cervical smears. His actions were found to be negligent. Held: The Board considered whether it would be correct to require an additional prerequisite of intention or conscious recklessness before an award of exemplary damages. Such a requirement would always bring evidential difficulties and "courts in common law countries have remained true to the underlying rationale of the exemplary damages jurisdiction. Courts in all countries have openly recognised the exceptional and unusual nature of this jurisdiction. They have recognised the need to confine this remedy to truly exceptional and unusual cases. Punishment is primarily a matter for criminal law. They have, further, been well aware of the importance, and the difficulty, of confining the use of this remedy in cases of negligence. " However "as a matter of principle and authority, intentional wrongdoing or conscious recklessness is not an essential prerequisite to an order for payment of exemplary damages. Legal principle does not require that the court’s jurisdiction should be limited in this way." At the same time: "their Lordships cannot over-emphasise what has already been indicated more than once. The cases where it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages are exceptional. The cases where it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in the absence of intentional wrongdoing or conscious recklessness will be exceptional and rare indeed."
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

 
 Barings Bank Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and others; CA 18-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1155
 
Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1157
19 Jul 2002
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (a Firm) and Others Times, 01 August 2002
23 Jul 2002
OHCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Banking, Professional Negligence
The defenders, a firm of chartered accountants, prepared accounts for a customer of the pursuer bank. The bank claimed damages for negligence having relied upon the accounts. The auditors relied upon the case of Galoo. Held: It was not necessary for the accounts to have been prepared specifically for the bank, no separate evidence of such an intention was required. Galoo did not refer to the present case where the auditors expressly knew that the bank would be relying on the accounts in making lending decisions. It had been open to the defenders, if they had wished to disclaim any responsibility beyond the statutory duties fulfilled. The auditors had to satisfy themselves that the company could continue, and that required them to test the readiness of the bank to continue its lending, and accordingly also the bank's reliance upon the audited accounts.
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]
 
Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWCA Civ 1173
23 Jul 2002
CA

Professional Negligence, Costs

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 The Estate of Mohammed Sabir Raja (Deceased) v Austin Gray (A Firm); QBD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1607 (QB)

 
 Michael Anthony Prosser v Castle Sanderson Solicitors (a Firm), Geoffrey Martin and Co (A Firm); CA 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1140
 
Yardley v Challinors Lyon Clark (A Firm) and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1246
16 Aug 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Anderson v Blackpool, Wyer and Flyde Community Health Services [2002] EWCA Civ 1247
20 Aug 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Perotti v Collyer-Bristow [2002] EWCA Civ 1326
23 Aug 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Dawson Cornwell and Co v C J Nicholl and Associates Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 3170 (QB)
17 Sep 2002
QBD
Gross J
Professional Negligence
The claimant firm of solicitors sought payent of its fees by their client. The defendant sought damages alleging professional negligence when pursuing another firm of solicitors for professional negligence in their own pursuit of a further firm of solicitors.
[ Bailii ]
 
Primavera v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1327
4 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mance And Lord Justice Latham
Financial Services, Damages, Professional Negligence
The claimant purchased a pension plan relying upon advice from the defendant. Since discovering the error, the plan had in fact prospered. The respondent appealed the judges failure to allow fully for the improvement when assessing damages. Held: Part of the claim required both to assess the loss as at 1995, and to recover later loses. It was double recovery. As to the rest the damages which might be assessed in 1995 would have disappeared by 2000. The claimant had not liquidated the fund in 1995. He had however still been misled by the defendant, and had acted as if the loss had been incurred. The damages stood to be assessed as at 1995.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Broughton v Liverpool Women's NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1426
8 Oct 2002
CA
Simon Brown LJ, VP CA
Professional Negligence
Application for permission to appeal against rejection of clinicall negligence claim as to failure to diagnose cervical cancer.
[ Bailii ]
 
Perotti v Collyer Bristow (A Firm) and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1530
11 Oct 2002
CA

Professional Negligence
Application for leave to appeal against striking out of claim.
[ Bailii ]
 
Howard v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ 1546
14 Oct 2002
CA
Mantell, Rix LJJ
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleged inappropriate medical treatment whilst serving in the RAF.
[ Bailii ]
 
Nicholas Charles Edward Land and others v the Executive Counsel of the Joint Disciplinary Scheme [2002] EWHC 2086 (Admin)
15 Oct 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Stanley Burton
Administrative, Professional Negligence
The applicants were partners and staff in Ernst & Young. They sought a stay of disciplinary proceedings brought against them by the accountancy regulators pending resolution of the civil claim against them in respect of closely related issues involving the Equitable Life insurance company. Held: There was at this stage no sufficient burden imposed on the defendants to amount to an unfairness. It was not to be presumed that documents produced for the disciplinary proceedings would prejudice the litigation.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Countrywide Assured Group plc and others v Marshall and others (AIG Europe (UK) Ltd and others intervening) Gazette, 14 November 2002
15 Oct 2002
QBD
Morrison J
Insurance, Professional Negligence
The claimants sought payments under professional indemnity policies, allowing for excesses on individual claims. The insurer sought to limit its overall liability to any policy holder saying that the acts of mis-selling were to be viewed as part of a series, being 'occurrences of a series [of claims] attributable to one source or original cause.' Held: The words were clear. The excesses were not to be aggregated, but the claims for the purposes of the limit were to be aggregated. The plain meaning of the words should not be distorted.

 
Temple v South Manchester Health Authority [2002] EWCA Civ 1406
18 Oct 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Welburn v Dibb Lupton Broomhead [2002] EWCA Civ 1601
24 Oct 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Gregg v Scott Times, 04 November 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002; Gazette, 19 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1471
29 Oct 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Mance, Latham LLJ
Damages, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages. He had a lymphoma, but despite his seeking medical assistance, it was not diagnosed early, and his life expectancy was diminished. Held: In order to claim damages for a reduced life expectancy, the claimant had to show that the negligence contributed to the loss. Here, the claimant's disease had a poor prognosis in any event, and he had not been able to show that any actual damage had been caused. The case fell squarely within Hotson, and the claim failed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
James v Baily Gibson and Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1690
30 Oct 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Grimm v Newman Chantry Vellacott DFK [2002] EWCA Civ 1621
7 Nov 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Carnwath
Professional Negligence
Accountants appealed a finding of professional negligence. They had advised an american resident in Britain that he could transfer assets to his wife here without adverse tax consequences. At the trial the judge had considered an alternative scheme suggested now by the claimant. Held: The judge should not have considered the alternative scheme. The defendants were not negligent and the appeal was allowed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adrian Alan Limited v Fuglers (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1655
13 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Dyson
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions

[ Bailii ]

 
 Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC); CA 13-Nov-2002 - Times, 29 November 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; [2003] 1 WLR 577; [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 131; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 140
 
Sharon Mary Claydon v Boys and Maughan and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1815
18 Nov 2002
CA

Professional Negligence
Permission to appeal denied - no claim.
Access to Justice Act 1999 55
[ Bailii ]
 
Davenhall and Another v Blackstone Franks and Co and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1961
21 Nov 2002
CA
Rix, Dyson LJJ
Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Youssif v Jordan [2002] EWCA Civ 1827
22 Nov 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
F J Architects Ltd v Evans of Leeds Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1785
26 Nov 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Brinn and Another v Russell Jones and Walker (A Firm) [2002] EWHC 2727 (QB)
12 Dec 2002
QBD

Professional Negligence, Damages
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 be assessed. Held: It was not clear that the first firm were negligent in not joining the author having failed to identify that the defendant company was impecunious. The total claim must be reduced to allow for the effect of the impecuniosity of the final defendants on the settlement which would have been obtained.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
John D Wood Ltd v Knatchbull Times, 16 January 2003
16 Dec 2002
QBD

Professional Negligence
The claimant sought payment of his commission as an estate agent. The defendant sought to set off a claim for damages, alleging that the agent had failed to keep him apprised of developments in the local market to his loss. Held: The agent could not be under a duty to tell a client of every scrap of information, but did have a duty to advise on significant changes. A neighbouring property had been marketed at a significantly higher price, and the defendant should have been told of this.

 
A, B v Essex County Council Times, 24 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2707 (QB)
18 Dec 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Buckley
Local Government, Professional Negligence, Vicarious Liability
The applicants sought damages after they had had placed with them for adoption a child who proved to be destructively hyperactive. Held: The authority might be liable where they failed to disclose to adoptive parents known characteristics of a child. A person exercising a particular skill might owe a duty of care where its negligent performance might adversely affect others (Phelps). The local authority can be vicariously liable for any damages resulting. It was foreseeable that a child known to be violent to people and property might cause injury in the future.
Adoption Act 1976
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1823
18 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice May Sir Anthony Evans
Professional Negligence, Construction
The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a wall intended to restrain any fire. The architects said their duty was limited to responding to the first defendant's requests for plans, and they did not themselves have responsibility for failures of specification. Held: The omissions in design were the responsibility of the architects, who owed a duty of care to purchasers of a building as beneficial owners, where they had been involved in the construction, in respect of latent defects in the building of which there is no reasonable possibility of inspection.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Carr v Bower Cotton [2002] EWCA Civ 1788
18 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden
Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
The claimant had been victim to a substantial fraud. The defendant solicitors had been an innocent tool of the fraud. The claimant sought damages alleging professional negligece.
[ Bailii ]
 
Raja v Austin Gray (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1965; [2003] 1 EGLR 91; [2003] BPIR 725; [2003] 13 EG 117; [2003] 4 EGCS 151; [2003] Lloyd's Rep PN 126
19 Dec 2002
CA
Peter Gibson LJ
Land, Professional Negligence
A mortgagee is at all times free to consult his own interests alone as to whether and when to exercise his power of sale. The relationship and duties owed by the receiver are equitable only. Peter Gibson LJ said: "(1) A mortgagee with the power of sale is not a trustee of that power, the power being given to the mortgagee for his own benefit.
(2) A mortgagee is not under a general duty of care to the mortgagor and can act in his own interests in deciding whether and when he should exercise his power of sale.
(3) A mortgagee, however, is subject to an equitable duty to act in good faith and to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable at the time he decides to sell. That duty is owed to those interested in the equity of redemption. They include the mortgagor, other mortgagees and a guarantor of the mortgage debt, but they do not include a tenant at will of the mortgaged property, nor, where the mortgagor is a trustee, a beneficiary of the trust."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Messrs G A Moffat and others v Messrs Burges Salmon (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1977
20 Dec 2002
CA

Professional Negligence

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