(Outer House) The pursuer had made a loan to X in assumed reliance on a statement by the defenders, who were X’s solicitors, about the extent of his assets. The statement was materially inaccurate. But the pursuer’s claim against the defenders failed. Having referred to the Hedley Byrne case as the proper starting point and to the Allied Finance case, the Lord Ordinary observed: ‘In my opinion four factors are relevant to a determination of the question whether in a particular case a solicitor, while acting for a client, also owes a duty of care to a third party: (1) the solicitor must assume responsibility for the advice or information furnished to the third party; (2) the solicitor must let it be known to the third party expressly or impliedly that he claims, by reason of his calling, to have the requisite skill or knowledge to give the advice or furnish the information; (3) the third party must have relied upon that advice or information as matter for which the solicitor has assumed personal responsibility; and (4) the solicitor must have been aware that the third party was likely so to rely.’
The Lord Ordinary concluded that the pursuer was able to establish none of the first three of the four factors.
Lord Ordinary, Lord Jauncey
1988 SLT 611
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Steel and Another v NRAM Ltd (Formerly NRAM Plc) SC 28-Feb-2018
The appellant solicitor acted in a land transaction. The land was mortgaged to the respondent bank. She wrote to the bank stating her client’s intention to repay the whole loan. The letter was negligently mistaken and the bankers allowed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Legal Professions
Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654668