The claimant instructed the defendant firm to act in advising in support of an investment in Russia. The investment was declared invalid in the courts of Russia, and the claimant said that the defendant should have forewarned them of the problem, avoiding expense and loss of profit. The defendants denied instructions to act in this way. The bid documents were prepared by the claimant, and the defendants denied any duty to act to correct them.
Held: The scope of the duties did include the identification of problems in the documentation, between the invitation to tender and the bid. Any uncertainty as to a solicitor’s instructions ought to be resolved by the solicitor. Misunderstandings should not arise; there ought to be some record of instructions and variations to them. Since the client would have gone ahead, the damages fell to be calculated on a loss of chance basis.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Buckley
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 191 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Coudert Brothers v Normans Bay Limited (Formerly Illingworth, Morris Limited) CA 27-Feb-2004
The respondent had lost its investment in a Russian development, and the appellants challenged a finding that they had been negligent in their advice with regard to the offer documents.
Held: As to the basis of calculation of damages as to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence
Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.179487
