The defendant solicitors were joint tortfeasors, having failed to make an application to court in a timely fashion, when it might have succeeded. It defended the claim saying that had the claimant issued proceedings against a second firm that firm would also have been liable.
Held: The ‘but for test’ set out in Iraqi Airways was satisfied in this case. The claim fell within the purpose of the law imposing liability for professional negligence. Nothing prevented the claim against the defendant. The possible liability of a second party did not absolve the defendant.
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
Cited – Finecard International Ltd (T/A the Ninja Corporation) v Urquhart Dyke and Lord (A Firm) and Another ChD 10-Nov-2005
The defendants sought an interim ruling that they were not the cause of the claimant’s losses. They had acted as patent agents to license to exploit the claimant’s patent in the UK. They alleged that the failure to complete the registration of the . .
See Also – Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans (A Firm) ChD 21-Jul-2006
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Damages
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229997