Solicitors Followed Historical Practice
Premises owned by the plaintiff were subject to an obsolete covenant restricting their use to that of a private dwelling house. It had in fact been used continuously for many years, both before and after the plaintiff became owner, for business purposes, without any complaint being made. In 1948 the plaintiff sold the premises by auction to B who paid a deposit. The particulars described the property as a ‘valuable and commanding freehold corner shop premises,’. A special condition stated that the property was subject to the restrictive covenants as to user contained in a deed of 1870 (which restricted the user to that of a private dwelling house), so far as those covenants were subsisting and capable of taking effect. In answering a requisition as to title whether the premises were subject to a restrictive covenant, the defendants acting as solicitors for the plaintiff, replied ‘Yes, see special condition 7. There appear to have been breaches of the covenant as to user but no notice of breach has been served.’ The purchaser took that reply as a repudiation and recovered his deposit. While that action was pending another purchaser offered to buy the premises, but the defendants advised him not to sell pending the trial of the first action. The property was then damaged by fire. The insurance lapsed. He claimed damages from his solicitors for negligence.
Held: His action failed. The defendants having in answering the requisition acted in accordance with the general practice of conveyancers, which had been followed for many years without any ill consequence, they could not be held to have acted negligently or failed to come up to a reasonable standard of care, for they could not reasonably have anticipated the result which had flowed from it. The answer given to the requisition on title by the solicitors’ managing clerk followed the form which the trial judge, Harman J. said had been used in answering such questions ‘from the time of the memory of man, or at all events for a long time.’ The solicitors had acted in accordance with the general practice of conveyancers; no ill consequences had ever been known to flow from an answer to a requisition in this form. Denning L.J. said that now the case had gone adversely to the vendor it was possible to see that a mistake had been made, but he warned against being wise after the event. The test to be applied was whether solicitors in that position had ‘failed to come up to a reasonable standard of care and skill such as is rightfully required of an ordinary prudent solicitor.’ It was impossible to say that these solicitors were guilty of a breach of duty to their client; it was one of those misadventures and misfortunes which sometimes happen in the best conducted businesses.
Lord Denning, Hodson L
[1955] 1 All ER 240, [1955] 1 WLR 183
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Fletcher and Son v Jubb, Booth and Helliwel CA 1920
Scrutton LJ said: ‘it would be extremely difficult to define the exact limit by which the skill and diligence which a solicitor undertakes to furnish in the conduct of a case is bounded, or to trace precisely the dividing line between that . .
Cited by:
Cited – G and K Ladenbau (UK) Ltd v Crawley and De Reya QBD 25-Apr-1977
The defendant solicitors acted for the plaintiff in the purchase of land, but failed to undertake a commons search which would have revealed an entry which would prevent the client pursuing his development. The defect was discovered only when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.183165