Tag: Professional Negligence

Frazer Harris v Scholfield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): FD 4 Nov 1998

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.

Citations:

Gazette 04-Nov-1998, [1998] 2 FLR 679

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80673

Erridge v Coole and Haddock: ChD 6 Jul 2000

A solicitor had advised one party to a joint venture transaction. His advice was incorrect. He witnessed the signature of another partner who was not separately represented. Although the solicitor’s advice was negligent, and he should have regarded himself as the solicitor for that party as regards parts of the agreement impacting upon him personally, the party would have proceeded anyway, and could show no loss personal to him.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80361

Cottingham and Another v Attey Bower and Jones (A Firm): ChD 19 Apr 2000

A solicitor acted on a purchase in 1993. He asked for but did not receive copies of building regulations consents from 1985. He went ahead anyway.
Held: He had been negligent. He had been under a duty to continue the investigation, and to advise his clients that the replies relating to these consents appeared to be misleading. Some consents had been refused, and there remained a small risk of proceedings by the local authority for an injunction under section 36 (6) of the Building Act 1984, even though time limits had expired for other enforcement purposes. A solicitor is generally under a duty to provide specific information or advice, and not to advise on the wisdom of transactions in general. The fact that the claimant would not have purchased the property but for his negligence did not mean that the defendant was liable for every consequences which would not have happened but for the negligence. The loss for which he is responsible will normally be limited to the consequences of the specific information being inaccurate. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defect.

Judges:

Rimmer J

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] EGCS 48, [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 591

Statutes:

Building Act 1984 36(1) 36(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79527

Ball v Banner and Others; Neill Clark (A Firm) v Healey and Baker (A Firm): ChD 23 Mar 2000

A valuer had described expected values for an property proposed as an investment promoted by a co-defendant. The valuation and prediction as to how long it might take to have it let had contributed to the representations leading to the investments being made and the assessments had been made without any effective degree of analysis or care, and the company was responsible to make a contribution of one quarter. The contribution was properly claimed since it was four square with the original claim. The ‘damage in question’ meant the loss suffered by the investors from entering into the transaction. Sections 2 (3) (a) and (b) made it ‘clear that persons may be liable in respect of the same damage without necessarily being liable in the same amounts’.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

Gazette 23-Mar-2000, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep PN 569

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (HLl) Ltd (T/A Dunlop Heywood Lorenz) and Cobbetts ComC 18-Feb-2009
The claimant had leant money on a property fraudulently overvalued by an employee of the now insolvent first defendant. A contribution order had been agreed by the solicitors. The court heard applications by the claimants and the solicitors against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Damages

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78117

Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others: CA 6 Dec 1996

Whether a duty of care exists from the auditors of a subsidiary, towards its parent company is a triable issue.

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-1996, [1997] 1 BCLC 427

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Barings Plc and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others ChD 13-Aug-1996
The need to reach one conclusion justified service of proceedings overseas on a firm’s partners, where there was a genuine issue to be decided . .

Cited by:

Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78228

Raja v Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc: ChD 16 May 2000

The obligation of a mortgagee having taken possession of a property to obtain a proper price, was an obligation due in equity, and not either under the contract for the loan or as associated with the speciality agreement giving the property in charge. Nevertheless the claim was akin to an action for damages for negligence, and the period of limitation governing the action was six years.

Citations:

Times 16-May-2000

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.85655

Couper v Irwin Mitchell Llp and Others: ChD 13 Dec 2017

The claimant sought a declaration that proceedings against its former lawyers were not covered by an extended civil restraint order.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of the order, and was to be struck out, but permission was given for new proceedings subject to any limitation issues which might then apply.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3231 (Ch), [2017] WLR(D) 826

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601829

TW (A Child) v Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 4 Dec 2017

Claim in negligence for damages for personal injury and consequential losses arising out of the Claimant being born at the Defendant’s hospital in March 2008 with serious brain injury.

Judges:

King J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3139 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601125

Thomas v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors: CA 4 Sep 2017

Appeal by a claimant against the dismissal of his action against former solicitors for professional negligence. The point of principle which arises is whether solicitors acting in a high volume, fixed costs scheme for low value personal injury cases, are under a duty to advise about heads of claim which the client has said he does not wish to pursue and for which he says that he cannot provide supporting evidence.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Jackson, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593147

Russell and Another v Stone (T/A PSP Consultants) and Others: TCC 29 Jun 2017

The claimants sought almost 2.2 million pounds in damages against the defendants arising out of the defendants’ quantity surveying and project management services in respect of extensive building works carried out at the claimants’ property in North London. It is the defendants’ case that the relevant defendant is the first defendant, and the claimants’ primary case is to the same effect. Save where relevant, I shall refer to them generically as ‘the defendants’.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589008

Twin Benefits Ltd v Barker: ChD 19 Jun 2017

The defendant applied to have set aside an order allowing service on him of proceedings under a trust.
Held: The application succeeded.

Judges:

Marcus Smith J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1412 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Trusts, Jurisdiction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588219

Halsall and Others v Champion Consulting Ltd and Others: QBD 19 May 2017

The claimants’ case is that they were negligently induced to invest in two tax schemes which for convenience are referred to as the ‘charity shell’ schemes and the ‘Scion’ film scheme.

Judges:

Moulder HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1079 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588182

Correia v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust: CA 12 May 2017

The claim in this case concerns the treatment of a painful recurrent neuroma (benign tumour of the nerve tissue) in the appellant’s right foot.

Judges:

Black, Simon LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 356

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583649

Lyons v Fox Williams Llp: QBD 23 Mar 2017

The claimant sought damages alleging that her claim for personal injuries and under an insurance policy had been badly handled. Having lost her claim in substance, the court now considered costs.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 532 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Costs

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581314

Perry v Sidney Phillips and Son: CA 1982

In 1982 the surveyor failed to observe serious defects, including a leaking roof and a septic tank with an offensive smell. The plaintiff purchaser could not afford major repairs and executed only minor repairs himself. At the date of the trial the plaintiff was still occupying the house as his home. The judge awarded damages assessed in respect of repairing the defects as at the date of trial in 1981. Between the date of the trial and the hearing of the appeal the plaintiff sold the property for andpound;43,000. He had paid andpound;27,000 in 1976 in reliance upon the negligent report. It was acknowledged by the plaintiff that sale of the house without repairs having been executed made it difficult to support the award based upon the cost of repairs and his contention was that damages should be assessed on the basis of the difference in market value of the property as between its value taking into account the defects for which the judge found liability established and its value in the condition the defendants reported it to be either on the basis of values at the date of the report or at the date of judgment.
Held: When calculating the loss arising from a negligent survey, the loss is usually calculated as at the date of the purchase which followed. The decision in the Liesbosch must be confined to its facts.
Kerr LJ said: ‘If it is reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff may be unable to mitigate or remedy the consequence of the other party’s breach as soon as he would have done if he had been provided with the necessary means to do so from the other party, then it seems to me that the principle of The Liesbosch [1933] AC 449 no longer applies in its full rigour.’
Denning MR said that damages should be on a scale which is not excessive but modest. He referred to Dodd Properties and said: ‘where there is a contract by a prospective buyer with a surveyor under which the surveyor agrees to survey a house and make a report on it – and he makes it negligently – and the client buys the house on the faith of the report, then the damages are to be assessed at the time of the breach, according to the difference in price which the buyer would have given if the report had been carefully made from that which he in fact gave owing to the negligence of the surveyor. The surveyor gives no warranty that there are no defects other than those in his report. There is no question of specific performance. The contract has already been performed, albeit negligently. The buyer is not entitled to remedy the defects and charge the cost to the surveyor. He is only entitled to damages for the breach of contract or for negligence. It was so decided by this court in Philips v. Ward [1956] 1 W.L.R. 471, followed in Simple Simon Catering Ltd. v. Binstock Miller and Co. (1973) 117 S.J. 529.’

Judges:

Denning MR, Kerr LJ, Oliver LJ

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1297, [1982] 3 All ER 705, [1983-84] ANZ Conv R 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Confined – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Another v South Gloucestershire Council CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimants purchased land. The local search did not reveal a planning permission which affected the value of the property by applying an occupancy condition. He claimed compensation. Compensation was eventually agreed to be payable, but the . .
Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
Cited – Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Professional Negligence

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182978

D Morgan Plc v Mace and Jones (A Firm): TCC 22 Dec 2010

Issues of liability, causation and loss arising out of allegations of professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors, who rendered advice to the Claimant in respect of a quarry site in Cheshire.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3375 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.427412

Hughmans (A Firm) v Dunhill: CA 8 Mar 2017

The claimant solicitors firm sought payment of their fees. The defendant cross claimed in negligence. Th defendant appealed against summary judgment on claim and counterclaim against her.
Held: Dismissed

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Sir Ernest Ryder SPT, Macyr LJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Professional Negligence

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579606

Balogun v Boyes Sutton and Perry (A Firm): CA 21 Feb 2017

The cliamant appealed against the rejection of his claim alleging professional negligence and beach of contract against his former solicitors.

Judges:

Gloster VP CA, Lloyd Jones, King LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 75

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Contract

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575331

Denning v Greenhalgh Financial Services Ltd: QBD 2 Feb 2017

Application pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) that the Claimant’s claim be struck out and judgment granted in favour of the Defendant upon the basis that the amended Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. There is further an application pursuant to CPR 24.2(a)(i) to award summary judgment to the Defendant upon the whole of the claim upon the basis that it has no real prospect of success and that there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial.

Judges:

Green J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 143 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573857

Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd: QBD 6 Dec 2016

The claimant suffered injury after his artificial left hip, supplied by the defendants, fractured.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3096 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 3, EC Council Directive 93/42/EEC, Medical Devices Regulations 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Consumer

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573398

Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 19 Dec 2016

Jay J
[2016] EWHC 3275 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572640

Adams and Others v Atlas International Property Services Ltd and Others: QBD 5 Dec 2016

‘The Claimants were purchasers of properties in Spain who paid the purchase price, but did not acquire title to their properties. They now sue the English agents and the Spanish lawyers who were involved in the purchases, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and unlawful means conspiracy.’

Lavender J
[2016] EWHC 3120 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572342

Miller v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust: QBD 14 Nov 2014

Assessment of damages in an action brought by the Claimant against the defendant NHS Trust for personal injuries caused by clinical negligence in their treatment of her.

Curran QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 3772 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Damages, Professional Negligence

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.541560

Chief Land Registrar v Caffrey and Co: ChD 3 Feb 2016

Judgment on the Claimant’s application by notice for judgment against the Defendant in default of filing an acknowledgment of service, with damages to be assessed. The claimant had indemnified a bank as to their losses as victims of a fraud, and sought recovery from the solicitors who had failed to prevent the loss.

Matthews Master
[2016] EWHC 161 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561517

Allied Finance and Investments Ltd v Haddow and Co: 1983

(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The claimant had agreed to make a loan to X and to take security for it on a yacht. The defendants, who were X’s solicitors, certified to the claimant that the instrument of security executed by X in relation to the yacht was binding on him. In fact, as the defendants knew, it was not binding on him because he was not, and was not intended to become, the owner of the yacht.
Held: The fact that a certificate is sent by a solicitor to a lender confirming the giving of independent advice and that guarantors had signed the guarantee voluntarily may place a duty of care on the solicitor in relation to the lender.
Cooke J said: ‘the relationship between two solicitors acting for their respective clients does not normally of itself impose a duty of care on one solicitor to the client of the other. Normally the relationship is not sufficiently proximate. Each solicitor is entitled to expect that the other party will look to his own solicitor for advice and protection.’
Richardson J said: ‘This is not the ordinary case of two solicitors simply acting for different parties in a commercial transaction. The special feature attracting the prima facie duty of care is the giving of a certificate in circumstances where the [defendants] must have known it was likely to be relied on by the [claimant].’

Cooke J, Richardson J
[1983] NZLR 22
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Connolly-Martin v Davis CA 27-May-1999
A claim was brought by a party against counsel for his opponent who had gone beyond his authority in giving an undertaking for his client.
Held: The claim had no prospect of success, and had been struck out correctly. Counsel offering to the . .
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.

Legal Professions, Professional Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.424848

Crammond v Medway NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 1 Dec 2015

‘the Claimant claims damages for personal injury and other losses arising out of his medical treatment at the Medway Maritime Hospital Gillingham Kent. This is an interesting case which involves some consideration of the relationship between Accident and Emergency Departments and Same Day Treatment Centres.’

Brian Forster QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 3540 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556487

Wellesley Partners Llp v Withers Llp: CA 11 Nov 2015

Appeals by both parties in a professional negligence action, and from the consequent order. The appeals raised issues about the appropriate rule for remoteness of damage where a claimant has concurrent causes of action for pecuniary loss in tort and in contract, and about the application of the ‘loss of a chance’ principle to the assessment of damages.

Longmore, Floyd LJJ, Roth J
[2015] EWCA Civ 1146
Bailii
England and Wales

Professional Negligence

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554614

Blakemores Ldp v Scott and Another: CA 7 Oct 2015

The court was asked whether the judge was right to grant summary judgment striking down the first and third appellants’ negligence claims against their solicitors on the grounds that they were issued more than 3 years after they acquired ‘the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage’ within the meaning of sections 14A(5) and (6) of the Limitation Act 1980.

Moore-Bick, Underhill, Voss LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 999
Bailii
England and Wales

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553110