Professional Negligence - 1998

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 86 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Perry -v- Moysey [1998] PNLR 657
1998	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers

Attorney-General -v- Prince & Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262
1998 Richardson P	Professional Negligence, Health Professions, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Citers
	(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Claims in negligence were made by the natural mother of a child who had been adopted, and also by the child, now an adult, complaining of the process followed in the adoption and also of failure to investigate a complaint made about his treatment when the child was still a child. Held: The social worker's function is one of independent professional judgment, the purpose of which is to facilitate the Family Court's determination of the application. The legislative environment is of considerable relevance to the dual issues of proximity and policy which drive the conventional enquiry into whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in a novel situation. The court struck out the first claim as incompatible with the adoption regime laid down by statute in New Zealand, but by a majority, allowed both the claims under the second head to proceed to trial.

M -v- Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authorit [1998] Lloyd's Rep Med 157
1998 Judge Garner	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Huddersfield County Court) M, aged 17, discovered she was pregnant. She already had a daughter and did not want another child. She attended a senior clinical medical officer for Huddersfield Community Services, at the Health Centre, becoming a patient of the Respondent. Abortion was found appropriate and it was arranged for M to be treated by the Second Defendant, a private surgical hospital. The authority had a long standing contract with the hospital. The doctor wrote to the hospital: "I enclose notes for a patient for whom we are prepared to pay the appropriate fees for an abortion." M attended the private clinic and underwent a vacuum aspiration of pregnancy, carried out by the Third Defendant. Two and a half months later M discovered that she was still pregnant and that her pregnancy had been of some twenty or twenty weeks duration. She gave birth to a healthy child and sued for negligence. She obtained judgment against the Third Defendant in May 1995 and against the Second Defendant in March 1996, but neither was insured and by 1997 the latter was subject to a winding-up order. As the judge observed "in reality the only prospect of recovering damages lies against [the Authority]". It was accepted that the termination of pregnancy was carried out incompetently. It was accepted that the authority contracted with the hospital, that the Second Defendant should perform the termination of pregnancy. Held: M was under the care of the Authority at all material times and she was its patient. The Authority owed her a non-delegable duty of care.

BCCI (Overseas) Ltd -v- Price Waterhouse (No 2); Orse Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd -v- Price Waterhouse (No 2) [1998] PNLR 564
1998 CA Sir Brian Neill, Nourse and Brooke LJJ	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	Sir Brian Neill discussed three paths by which a duty of care might be imposed on a party: "1. The threefold test of foreseeability, proximity and fair, just and reasonable. 2. The assumption of responsibiy 3. The incremental approach He then identified the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account in determining whether the threefold test and the assumption of responsibility test are met: "(a) the precise relationship between (to use convenient terms) the adviser and the advisee. This may be a general relationship or a special relationship which has come into existence for the purpose of a particular transaction. But in my opinion counsel for Overseas was correct when he submitted that there may be an important difference between the cases where the adviser and the advisee are dealing at arm's length and cases where they are acting 'on the same side of the fence'. (b) the precise circumstances in which the advice or information or other material came into existence. Any contract or other relationship with a third party will be relevant. (c) the precise circumstances in which the advice or information or other material was communicated to the advisee, and for what purpose or purposes, and whether the communication was made by the adviser or by a third party. It will be necessary to consider the purpose or purposes of the communication both as seen by the adviser and as seen by the advisee, and the degree of reliance which the adviser intended or should reasonably have anticipated would be placed on its accuracy by the advisee, and the reliance in fact placed on it. (d) the presence or absence of other advisers on whom the advisee would or could rely. This factor is analogous to the likelihood of intermediate examination in product liability cases. (e) the opportunity, if any, given to the adviser to issue a disclaimer." and " the general trend of the authorities makes it clear that liability will depend not on intention but on the actual or presumed knowledge of the adviser and on the circumstances of the particular case."

Cancer Research Campaign -v- Ernest Brown [1997] STC 1425; [1998] PNLR 592
1998	Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	An executor does not usually owe a duty to advise a beneficiary in connection with the affairs of the beneficiary. Tax avoidance is not an idea that runs naturally or should be attributed to ordinary people or to legal executives in a small firm of high street solicitors.

A & J Fabrications (Batley) Ltd -v- Grant Thornton and Others [1998] 2 BCLC 227
1998 ChD Jacobs J	Professional Negligence, Insolvency	Casemap
	The plaintiffs, the majority creditors of a company in liquidation, alleged that they had agreed with Grant Thornton, the defendants, to support the appointment of one of the firm's partners or employees as liquidator of the company, with a view to investigating the conduct of the directors, and to pay Grant Thornton's fees up to an initial limit of £5,000. A Grant Thornton member was appointed. The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract, and for negligence. Held: Ordinarily, outside creditors cannot sue a liquidator in negligence. Claims have succeeded for either a direct contract with the liquidator or as a result of the negligence and the creditors have suffered some special damage over and above other creditors. The submission that the plaintiffs should have sued the liquidators personally, on the footing that only they, and not the firm, possessed the powers which the plaintiffs alleged had been negligently exercised was misconceived. Jacobs J said: "It is true that it is employees of the firm who were the liquidators, but they only took their position as such by virtue of the contract between the plaintiff[s] and Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton, in accepting the consideration of £5,000, were contracting to put their man in as liquidator. Of course once in as liquidator he would owe his duties to the company. But there is nothing inconsistent between the pleaded contract and the employee having duties to the company. The pleaded contract is, in short, that the employee/liquidator undertakes to do a proper job as liquidator. That is what Grant Thornton contracted would happen." On the alternate claim in negligence, it was submitted that outside special circumstances, a liquidator owes no general duty of care to creditors. Jacob J said: "As a generality, that may well be true, but in two cases the courts have recognised that a liquidator is under a direct duty to creditors, or owes a direct duty to creditors." "Given there is a duty on these liquidators to get the money in, there was a duty to investigate what money could be got in. The pleading says they failed in that duty; in particular, they failed to keep the plaintiffs informed of the state of their investigations, and did so for such a long time that any possibility of a claim became statute-barred. [Counsel for Grant Thornton] says, again, that the plaintiffs have got the wrong party. If there was a duty in tort it was a duty on the individual liquidators, and they should be the defendants. No doubt they could be, but it seems to me that once those defendants were put in as Grant Thornton men, Grant Thornton owed a duty coterminous and dependent upon the duties of the individual liquidators to these plaintiffs." As to a duty under section 212, there was no reason why that statutory remedy should exclude common law remedies in contract or tort: "Those who undertake the task of being liquidators should reasonably expect to have to do their job properly, and should reasonably expect that if they do not do so they are answerable to those ultimately for whom they are acting, namely the creditors."
	Insolvency Act 1986 212

M -v- Calderdale & Kirklees Health Authority [1998] LLR(M) 157
1998 Garner J	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Huddersfield County Court) The defendant health authority referred the patient to a private hospital for a pregnancy termination. The private hospital was negligent. It proved insolvent and uninsured. The claimant brought the action against the health authority. Held: The health authority was liable for a breach of statutory duty, and a failure to take reasonable care to see that the private hospital was competent. The third basis was as follows: "The plaintiff never left the care of the first defendant. She was its patient. She never had an opportunity to divert from the route of treatment arranged on her behalf. In those circumstances she is entitled in my view to remain in the same position as a patient who remains in house relying upon the expectation of an effective provision of services. There will be all the backing of the authority if things go wrong. There is no need to make enquiries about competence; about standards; about insurance because the umbrella of the authority remains above. The patient who remains in-house will have had that provided."

Powell -v- Boladz [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep Med 116
1998 CA Stuart-Smith LJ	Professional Negligence, Health Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff's son aged 10 died of Addison's Disease which had not been diagnosed. An action against the Health Authority was settled. The parents then brought an action against 5 doctors in their local GP Practice in relation to matters that had taken place post death. The allegations included conspiracy to injuer by unlawful means. Held: The court considered whether the doctors in the practice owed a duty of care. Stuart-Smith LJ: "I propose to consider first whether a sufficient relationship of proximity existed. It must be appreciated that prior to April 17th 1990 although the Plaintiffs were patients of the Defendants in the sense that they were on their register, the only patient who was seeking medical advice and treatment was Robert. It was to him that the Defendants owed a duty of care. The discharge of that duty in the case of a young child will often involve giving advice and instruction to the parents so that they can administer the appropriate medication, observe relevant symptoms and seek further medical assistance if need be. In giving such advice, the Doctor obviously owes a duty to be careful. But the duty is owed to the child not to the parents. As Lord Diplock said in Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 at 890 a "doctor's duty of care, whether he be a general practitioner or consulting surgeon or physician is owed to that patient and none other, idiosyncrasies and all." No duty of care existed.

Bridget Anne Butters -v- Grimsby and Scunthorpe Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 4
12 Jan 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Halifax Plc -v- Gould & Swayne (a Firm) Spencer & Fisch (a Firm) Grimmett and Perks Trading As Douglas King Wayne (a Firm) Lawson West (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 9
13 Jan 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

L (a Minor) (By her Father and Next Friend) [1998] EWCA Civ 54
22 Jan 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Smith -v- Leicestershire Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 107; [1998] Lloyd's LR (Med) 77
29 Jan 1998 CA Roch LJ, Mantell LJ and Sir Patrick Russell	Professional Negligence, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that it might have arisen from the negligence now found. Held: The court looked at whether the claimant was in a position where she should reasonably have been aware of the cause her loss: 'what would the reasonable person have done placed in the situation of the plaintiff?' The court accepted that her "individual characteristics which might distinguish her from the reasonable woman should be disregarded. Thus her fortitude, her lack of any bitterness at becoming a tetraplegic and the determination and devotion she has shown to making herself as independent and useful a member of her family and society as she can, which have surpassed what might be expected, are to be put on one side. " Against this background "there was no basis on which the judge could accept the defendant’s submission that sometime in the 1970’s at the latest, the plaintiff should have taken advice. " She was told in 1984 that she had no possible claim. The defendant had not established constructive knowledge in the plaintiff, and the appeal succeeded.
	Limitation Act 1980 11 14
	Link[s] omitted

Elizabeth Pauk -v- Camden and Islington Health Authority S Parbhoo [1998] EWCA Civ 144
4 Feb 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Mean and Another -v- Thomas and Others
4 Feb 1998 QBD	Professional Negligence
	Solicitor giving advice to professional land agent that must ensure land was suitable for development was not negligent when covenants were not disclosed.

Barazancha -v- Messrs Pannone Napier and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 157
5 Feb 1998 CA Potter, May LJJ	Professional Negligence
	Application for leave to appeal against strike out of claim for professional negligence as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and as an abuse.
	[ Bailii ]

Assin N'Dow -v- Timmis Desai Solicitors [1998] EWCA Civ 156
5 Feb 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Ratcliffe -v- Plymouth & Torbay Health Authority Exeter and North Devon Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 206; [1998] Lloyd's LR Med 162
11 Feb 1998 CA Hobhouse LJ, Brooke LJ	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff was given a spinal anaesthetic, but subsequently suffered a serious neurological defect on the right side. The cause was a mystery. The MRI Scan showed a lesion in the thoracic spine which the plaintiff claimed must have been the result of the spinal anaesthetic having been administered at the wrong level. The anaesthetist gave evidence that he had administered it at the lumbar spine. The judge accepted the anaesthetist's evidence and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. Held: The court considered the value of the maxim res ipsa loquitur in professional negligence claims: "Res ipsa loquitur is not a principle of law and it does not relate to or raise any presumption. It is merely a guide to help identify when a prima facie case is being made out. Where expert and factual evidence is being called on both sides at trial its usefulness will normally have been long since exhausted. "
	Link[s] omitted

Ratcliffe -v- Plymouth & Torbay Health Authority and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 2000; (1998) 42 BMLR 64; [1998] Lloyds Rep Med 162; [1998] PIQR P170
11 Feb 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited (In Liquidation); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (In Liquidation); Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) -v- Price Waterhouse Times, 04 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 236; (1998) PNLR 564; [1998] Lloyd's Rep Bank 85
13 Feb 1998 CA Neill LJ	Professional Negligence, Banking	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The special relationship between an auditor and a bank, meant that a duty of care could extend even to a second bank with its own auditors. In determining whether there had been an assumption of responsibility, the the relevant factors would include (according to the authorities):- "(a) the precise relationship between (to use convenient terms) the adviser and the advisee. This may be a general relationship or a special relationship which has come into existence for the purpose of a particular transaction. But in my opinion counsel for Overseas was correct when he submitted that there may be an important difference between the cases where the adviser and the advisee are dealing at arm's length and cases where they are acting "on the same side of the fence. (b) the precise circumstances in which the advice or information or other material came into existence. Any contract or other relationship with a third party will be relevant. (c) the precise circumstances in which the advice or information or other material was communicated to the advisee, and for what purpose or purposes, and whether the communication was made by the adviser or by a third party. It will be necessary to consider the purpose or purposes of the communication both as seen by the adviser and as seen by the advisee, and the degree of reliance which the adviser intended or should reasonably have anticipated would be placed on its accuracy by the advisee, and the reliance in fact placed on it. (d) the presence or absence of other advisers on whom the advisee would or could rely. This factor is analogous to the likelihood of intermediate examination in product liability cases. (e) the opportunity, if any, given to the adviser to issue a disclaimer."
	Link[s] omitted

Berry -v- Calderdale Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 248
16 Feb 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Health Professions
	[ Bailii ]

Mount -v- Baker Austin [1998] PNLR 493; [1998] EWCA Civ 277
18 Feb 1998 CA Simon Brown LJ	Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The Defendant solicitors had allowed the Plaintiff's claim to be struck out for want of prosecution. The court considered how to calculate the value of the loss of the chance of pursuing the claim: "1. The legal burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that in losing the opportunity to pursue his claim (or defence to counterclaim) he has lost something of value i.e. that his claim (or defence) had a real and substantial rather than merely a negligible prospect of success. (I say "negligible" rather than "speculative" -- the word used in a somewhat different context in Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons [1995] 1WLR 1602 -- lest "speculative" may be thought to include considerations of uncertainty of outcome, considerations which in my judgement ought not to weigh against plaintiff in the present context, that of struck out litigation.) 2. The evidential burden lies on the defendants to show that despite their having acted for the plaintiff in the litigation and charged for their services, that litigation was of no value to their client, so that he lost nothing by their negligence in causing it to be struck out. Plainly the burden is heavier in a case where the solicitors have failed to advise the client of the hopelessness of his position and heavier still where, as here, two firms of solicitors successively have failed to do so. If, of course, the solicitors have advised their client with regard to the merits of his claim (or defence) such advice is likely to be highly relevant. 3. If and insofar as the court may now have greater difficulty in discerning the strength of the plaintiff's original claim (or defence) than it would have had at the time of the original action, such difficulties should not count against him, but rather against his negligent solicitors. It is quite likely that the delay will have caused such difficulty and quite possible, indeed, that that is why the original action was struck out in the first place. That, however, is not inevitable: it will not be the case in particular (a) where the original claim (or defence) turned on questions of law or the interpretation of documents, or (b) where the only possible prejudice from the delay can have been to the other side's case. 4. If and when the court decides that the plaintiff's chances in the original action were more than merely negligible it will then have to evaluate them. That requires the court to make a realistic assessment of what would have been the plaintiff's prospects of success had the original litigation been fought out. Generally speaking one would expect the court to tend towards a generous assessment given that it was the defendants' negligence which lost the plaintiff the opportunity of succeeding in full or fuller measure. To my mind it is rather at this stage than the earlier stage that the principle established in Armory v Delmire (1722) 1 Stra. 505 comes into play."
	Link[s] omitted

Mount -v- Barker Austin (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 277; (1998) PNLR 493
18 Feb 1998 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Ward Mr Justice Moore-Bick	Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff sought damages for professional negligence from his former solicitors in respect of their conduct of a claim on his behalf. He succeeded, but was awarded no damages because the judge had found that his action would be bound to fail. He appealed. Held: The plaintiff had not established that he had any real chance of succeeding in the first action, and the appeal was dismissed. 'The legal burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that in losing the opportunity to pursue his claim (or defence to counter-claim) he has lost something of value' but 'The evidential burden lies on the defendants to show that despite their having acted for the plaintiff in the litigation and charged for their services, that litigation was of no value to their client, so that he lost nothing by their negligence in causing it to be struck out.' Moore-Bick J said: "When a person sues his former solicitors for negligence for the conduct of proceedings which led to his action being struck out, his loss is normally measured by reference to his prospects of success in the primary litigation – see Kitchen v. RAF Association [1958] 1 WLR 563. However in order to recover for the loss of this kind the court must be satisfied that the plaintiff had at least a real or substantial chance that he would have succeeded in the primary action, not merely a speculative one . . If his prospects fall short of that, the court will ascribe no value to them, but provided the court can see that there were real prospects of success it will evaluate them notwithstanding the difficulties that may involve."
	Link[s] omitted

Nationwide Building Society -v- (L) Bryan Lewis; Alyn Williams (Formerly Partners In the Firm of Bryan Lewis and Co) [1998] EWCA Civ 337
24 Feb 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	Employee solicitor held out as partner was not liable in negligence where he was neither involved in the advice nor holding out relied upon
	Link[s] omitted

Robert Walker -v- Messrs G H Medlicott and Sons (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 349
25 Feb 1998 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Vicky Elizabeth Read -v- Messrs Tozer (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 451
12 Mar 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Contract	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Kapfunde -v- Abbey National Plc and Dr D Daniel and [1998] EWCA Civ 535; [1999] ICR 1; [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 48
25 Mar 1998 CA Kennedy LJ	Health Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	A Doctor employed by a potential employer to report on the health of applicants for employment, owed no duty of care to those applicants.
	Link[s] omitted

Clarke -v- Nationwide Building Society [1998] EWCA Civ 469
25 Mar 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
	Professional negligence claim was not compromised by acceptance of sum in full and final settlement where the terms suggested were not offered.
	Link[s] omitted

Philip Harry Wisniewski (a Minor) and Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 596
1 Apr 1998 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others -v- Price Waterhouse
2 Apr 1998 ChD Sir Brian Neill	Professional Negligence, Damages	1 Citers
	Damages for negligently conducted audit were not to include sums which would not have been spent if truth had been known and if the company had stopped trading immediately. The court should consider whether also the defendant had had opportunity to issue a disclaimer.

O'Keefe -v- Harvey-Kemble [1998] EWCA Civ 701
24 Apr 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

O'Driscoll -v- Dudley Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 747; [1998] Lloyds Law Reports: Medical 210
30 Apr 1998 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Otton, Sir Christopher Slade	Professional Negligence, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an adult, and made a claim. Held: The defendant's appeal succeeded. The court had applied the more stringent test of proof of causation and fault instead of the less rigorous test of attributability as required by the statute. Under that test, the plaintiff was fixed with knowledge at a time such that her claim was now out of time.
	Limitation Act 1980 11 14
	Link[s] omitted

Punford -v- Gilberts Accountants (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 771
5 May 1998 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Stanley Kenneth Oates & others -v- Anthony Pitman and Co (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 797
7 May 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	Negligent failure to establish planning status.
	Link[s] omitted

Randall -v- Hogan-Boyd Solicitors [1998] EWCA Civ 825
12 May 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Boxall -v- Merton Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 829
13 May 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Tina Marie Pearce Kevin Douglas Pearce -v- United Bristol Healthcare Nhs Trust [1998] EWCA Civ 865; [1999] PIQR P53
20 May 1998 CA Woolf MR, Lodge Mummery LJJ	Professional Negligence	1 Cites 1 Citers
	A doctor advised a mother to delay childbirth, but the child was then stillborn. She complained that he should have advised her of the risk of the baby being stillborn. Held: "In a case where it is being alleged that a plaintiff has been deprived of the opportunity to make a proper decision as to what course he or she should take in relation to treatment, it seems to me to be the law, as indicated in the cases to which I have just referred, that if there is a significant risk which would affect the judgment of a reasonable patient, then in the normal course it is the responsibility of a doctor to inform the patient of that significant risk, if the information is needed so that the patient can determine for him or herself as to what course he or she should adopt."
	Link[s] omitted

Barclays Bank Plc -v- Weeks Legg & Dean (a Firm); Barclays Bank Plc -v- Lougher and Others; Barclays Bank Plc -v- Hopkin John & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 868; [1998] 3 All ER 213; [1999] QB 309
21 May 1998 CA Millet LJ, Pill LJ, May LJ	Legal Professions, Land, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	The defendant solicitors had each acted for banks in completing charges over property. They had given the standard agreed form of undertaking to secure a good and marketable title, and the banks now alleged that they were in breach because undisclosed covenants variously restricted future development of the land. Held: The standard solicitor's undertaking to obtain a good and marketable title was not a warranty of title, but an acknowledgement of the use to be made of the title. A defect in title which was not serious enough to allow a rejection of a title was insufficient to leave the title short of being good and marketable. "The Bank submits that this means “a freehold title free from incumbrances”; and that such a title is better than “a good title” since it must be both “good” (in the sense of being without blemish) and “marketable” (in the sense of relating to property which is readily saleable). Both propositions are quite untenable. They are the product of a growing unfamiliarity with the language which was once the common currency of conveyancers of unregistered land. They confuse the subject-matter of the sale (what has the vendor agreed to sell?) with the vendor’s duty to prove his title to the subject-matter of the sale (has the vendor sufficiently deduced title to what he has agreed to sell?) " and "The expression “good marketable title” describes the quality of the evidence which the purchaser is bound to accept as sufficient to discharge this obligation. It says nothing about the nature or extent of the property contracted to be sold to which title must be deduced. The expression is a compendious one which describes the title and not the property. It is used in contradistinction to “a good holding title”, by which is meant a title which a willing purchaser might reasonably be advised to accept, but which the Court would not force on a reluctant purchaser. "
	[ Bailii ]

Perrett -v- Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association) [1998] EWCA Civ 884; [1998] 2 Lloyd's LR 255
22 May 1998 CA Hobhouse LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ	Professional Negligence, Negligence, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff was a passenger in an aircraft which crashed, and there was a preliminary issue as to the liability to him of those who certified that the aircraft was fit to fly. Held: A certifying authority and its inspector were both liable in negligence having certified an experimental aircraft as fit to be flown, and the duty extended to any passenger who was carried in the aircraft. "What the second and third defendants seek to achieve in this case is to extend the decisions upon ‘economic’ loss to cases of personal injuries. It represents a fundamental attack upon the principle of tortious liability for negligent conduct which has caused foreseeable personal injury to others. That such a point should be considered to be even arguable shows how far some of the fundamental principles of the law of negligence have come to be eroded." and "The denial of a duty of care owed by such a person in relation to the safety of the aircraft towards those who may suffer personal injuries, whether as passengers in the aircraft or upon the ground, would leave a gap in the law of tort notwithstanding that a plaintiff has suffered foreseeable personal injury as a result of the unsafety of the aircraft and the unreasonable careless conduct of the defendant. It would be remarkable if that were the law."
	Air Navigation Order 1989
	Link[s] omitted

Palmer -v- Tees Health Authority and Another
1 Jun 1998 QBD	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	A Health authority was not liable in negligence for failing to restrict the freedom of a mental health out-patient who had threatened to kill and did so. The threat was not specific enough to allow action.

Derry -v- Ministry of Defence
8 Jun 1998 QBD	Professional Negligence
	Military doctor has exemption under Crown Immunity, from liability from his failure to diagnose and treat ocular cancer properly, and the exemption applied even though the medical condition pre-existed the treatment. The casue of action lay in the failure to diagnose.
	Crown Proceedings Act 1947

Esterhuizen and Another -v- Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc
10 Jun 1998 QBD	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate	Casemap 1 Cites
	A non-professional will writing agency should be subject to the same standards of professional negligence in drawing up wills as a recognised lawyer. This is necessary to protect members of the public using will writing services. "the process of signature and attestation is not completely straightforward and disaster may ensue if it is not correctly done. Any testator is entitled to expect reasonable assistance without having to ask exprssly for it. It is in my judgment not enough just to leave written instructions with the testator. In ordinary circumstances just to leave written instructions and to do no more will not only be contrary to good practice but also in my view negligent."

Phillip John Siddell; Carol Ann Siddell -v- Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 973
11 Jun 1998 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Leave to appeal.
	[ Bailii ]

Judy Christine Lague -v- West Kent Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 969
11 Jun 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Watts -v- Savills [1998] EWCA Civ 1014
16 Jun 1998 CA Stuart-Smith, Evans, Mummery LJJ	Professional Negligence
	That a finding that land had a particular development value missed by the valuer was a question of fact, was itself mistaken. It was a question of opinion, not to be seen with the benefits of hindsight as issue of fact.
	Link[s] omitted

Zwebner -v- Mortgage Corporation Plc; Trustee of Property of Zwebner and Brooks and Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1035; [1998] PNLR 769
18 Jun 1998 CA Robert Walker, Hobhouse and Waller LJJ	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant applied for a loan secured against a property owned with his wife. The defendant instructed solicitors who reported on title with an undertaking that documents would be executed before completion. They sent the mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Zwebner to sign, but Mr. Zwebner forged her signature. She now brought proceedings against the defendant saying that the mortgage did not bind her. The defendant claimed against the solicitors in negligence and for breach of contract in failing to comply with the undertaking given in the report on title. The court considered the general nature and scope of a solicitor's duty acting for a lender. They argued that it would be wrong to construe the undertaking that the documents would be "properly executed" as giving rise to a warranty that they had been signed by Mrs. Zwebner in the presence of a witness. This would transfer the entire risk of fraud onto one who was merely providing professional services. The expression "properly executed" should be limited to matters of form and the mechanics of completion. Held. It was difficult to read the undertaking in the way suggested. The consequences of giving weight to the word "properly" were not so unreasonable as to justify a construction which largely disregarded it. The solicitors were in breach of contract, having accepted an unqualified obligation to obtain the signature of Mrs. Zwebner.
	Link[s] omitted

Beckford (an Infant By her Mother and Next Friend Alleyne) -v- Weston [1998] EWCA Civ 1053
22 Jun 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Stockler; Stockler -v- Hawker (Trading As Robert Hawker & Associates); Alan Meek Wagstaff and Co Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1088
24 Jun 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

David William Piper -v- West Kent Health Authority; Dr Azizul Hasan and Dr Yasine Karim [1998] EWCA Civ 1104
29 Jun 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation
	Link[s] omitted

Bradford & Bingley Building Society -v- Boyce Evans and Sheppard (a Firm) (2) [1998] EWCA Civ 1153
6 Jul 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Mortgage Express Limited -v- S Newman and Co (a Firm) and Solicitors Indemnity Fund Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1168
7 Jul 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Philip Gerald Stanton; Sylvia Mary Stanton -v- Brian F Callaghan; Brian F Callaghan & Associates (a Firm); Brian F Callaghan and Partners (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1176; [2000] 1 QB 75
8 Jul 1998 CA Otton LJ, Nourse LJ	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant, a structural engineer, was retained by the plaintiffs in a claim against insurers for the costs of remedying subsidence of the plaintiffs' house. He advised total underpinning for £77,000, but later while preparing a joint report with the insurers' expert witness, he was persuaded to agree that infilling with polystyrene, at a cost of only some £21,000, would work. The case was settled on that basis, but the plaintiffs then brought an action claiming that their expert's change of advice had been negligent. Held: An expert giving a report for the purposes of proceedings had immunity from negligence since his first duty as an expert was to the court. An actual not a defensive view was needed from him. The protection of the immunity is available even if the trial does not take place. Nourse LJ said that the extent of an expert witness's immunity from suit was still in course of development and would and should be developed on a case by case basis: ". . . I see no justification for distinguishing between an expert and a lay witness, either on the ground that the expert is usually remunerated for his services or on the ground that he may be less likely than a lay witness to be deterred from giving evidence. Nor would I make any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. An immunity founded on requirement of public policy that witnesses should not be inhibited from giving frank and fearless evidence cannot afford to make distinctions such as these. If they were allowed, it would never be certain that the public policy would not sometimes be put at risk." Otton LJ said: "immunity is not granted primarily for the benefit of the individuals who seek it. They themselves are beneficiaries of the overarching public interest, which can be expressed as the need to ensure that the administration of justice is not impeded. This is the consideration which should be paramount. And it is not only the conduct of the immediate hearing which we should consider to be the "administration of justice". This is not a narrowly drawn phrase; it is best served by a purposive construction. " Chadwick LJ summarised the authorities: "(i) an expert witness who gives evidence at a trial is immune from suit in respect of anything which he says in court, and that immunity will extend to the contents of the report which he adopts as, or incorporates in, his evidence; (ii) where an expert witness gives evidence at a trial the immunity which he would enjoy in respect of that evidence is not to be circumvented by a suit based on the report itself; and (iii) the immunity does not extend to protect an expert who has been retained to advise as to the merits of a party's claim in litigation from a suit by the party by whom he has been retained in respect of that advice, notwithstanding that it was in contemplation at the time when the advice was given that the expert would be a witness at the trial if that litigation were to proceed. What, as it seems to me, has not been decided by any authority binding in this court is whether an expert is immune from suit by the party who has retained him in respect of the contents of a report which he prepares for the purpose of exchange prior to trial – say, to comply with directions given under RSC, Ord 38, r 37 - in circumstances where he does not, in the event, give evidence at the trial; either because the trial does not take place or because he is not called as a witness . . In my view, the public interest in facilitating full and frank discussion between experts before trial does require that each should be free to make proper concessions without fear that any departure from advice previously given to the party who has retained him will be seen as evidence of negligence. That, as it seems to me, is an area in which public policy justifies immunity. The immunity is needed in order to avoid the tension between a desire to assist the court and fear of the consequences of a departure from previous advice."
	Link[s] omitted

Abbott and Others -v- Strong and Others
9 Jul 1998 ChD	Professional Negligence
	Where professional adviser gave assistance to another making representation he had no liability to the representee where that person had no reason to know of his contribution and so did not rely upon his professional reputation

Western Trust & Savings Limited -v- Strutt and Parker (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1191
9 Jul 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	A valuer giving negligent valuation of property could still be liable where the property charged was not identical to the property valued, so long as the differences did not take it outside the reasonable contemplation of the valuer
	Link[s] omitted

Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc -v- D B Thakerar & Co (a Firm); Ranga & Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1187; [1999] 1 All ER 400; [1998] EWCA Civ 1249
21 Jul 1998 CA Millett LJ, Pill LJ, May LJ	Limitation, Professional Negligence, Trusts	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. Sections 23 and 36 and the absence of express statutory mention in the 1980 Act of actions for breach of fiduciary duty do not mean that a claim for an account of profits in respect of a breach of fiduciary duty is outside the scope of the Act altogether and is free of any period of limitation. Unless the account sought is of property subject to a trust, a claim for an account in equity will be based on legal rights. In the case of an action for an account by a principal against an agent, wherewest vale the claim is based on a contractual relationship. Even if the relationship is not contractual, but is exclusively equitable, a limitation period may be applied by the court under s 36 by analogy in the light of the position before 1 July 1940. There were two different types of constructive trust in respect of which an account can be claimed in equity and to which different considerations apply on questions of limitation: "The first covers those cases already mentioned, where the defendant, though not expressly appointed as trustee, has assumed the duties of a trustee by a lawful transaction which was independent of and preceded the breach of trust and is not impeached by the plaintiff. The second covers those cases where the trust obligation arises as a direct consequence of the unlawful transaction which is impeached by the plaintiff." The court considered the nature of a constructive trust: "A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the Property and deny the beneficial interest of another." There are two kinds of constructive trust: "A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another. In the first class of case, . . . the constructive trustee really is a trustee. He does not receive the trust property in his own right but by a transaction by which both parties intend to create a trust from the outset and which is not impugned by the plaintiff. His possession of the property is coloured from the first by the trust and confidence by means of which he obtained it, and his subsequent appropriation of the property to his own use is a breach of that trust. Well-known examples of such a constructive trust are McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL (a case of a secret trust) and Rochefoucald v Boustead[1897] 1 Ch 196 (where the defendant agreed to buy property for the plaintiff but the trust was imperfectly recorded). Pallant v Morgan [1952] 2 All ER 951, [1953] Ch 43 (where the defendant sought to keep for himself property which the plaintiff trusted him to buy for both parties) is another. In these cases the plaintiff does not impugn the transaction by which the defendant obtained control of the property. He alleges that the circumstances in which the defendant obtained control make it unconscionable for him thereafter to assert a beneficial interest in the Property. The second class of case is different. It arises when the defendant is implicated in a fraud. Equity has always given relief against fraud by making any person sufficiently implicated in the fraud accountable in equity. In such a case he is traditionally though I think unfortunately described as a constructive trustee and said to be 'liable to account as constructive trustee'. Such a person is not in fact a trustee at all, even though he may be liable to account as if he were. He never assumes the position of a trustee, and if he receives the trust property at all it is adversely to the plaintiff by an unlawful transaction which is impugned by the plaintiff. In such a case the expressions 'constructive trust' and 'constructive trustee' are misleading, for there is no trust and usually no possibility of a proprietary remedy; they are 'nothing more than a formula for equitable relief': Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 2 All ER 1073 at 1097, [1968] 1 WLR 1555 at 1582 per Ungoed-Thomas J. "
	Limitation Act 1980 20 35(3) 35(4) 35(5)
	Link[s] omitted

Atwell -v- Perr & Co and Another
27 Jul 1998 ChD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	Counsel advising during conduct of case has immunity but a wrongful advice on appeal was outside his immunity. Work done before a hearing constituting the formulation of case was within the immunity from suit.

Maes Finance Limited Mac No 1 Limited -v- Leftleys (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1298
27 Jul 1998 CA	Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence
	It was a proper exercise of a discretion by a judge to decide to try five similar cases together. Admissibility questions on one case becoming admissible in others could be set aside if there was a sufficiently similar factual basis alleged.
	Link[s] omitted

Halifax Plc -v- Gould and Swayne and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1311
28 Jul 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	[ Bailii ]

Mond -v- Hyde and Another
29 Jul 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	An official receiver acting in the course of the administration of a bankrupt's estate was immune from an action for negligent misstatement on public policy grounds. Re-assurance that damages would be disclaimed was ineffective

Helen Carr-Glynn -v- Frearsons (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1325; [1999] Ch 326; [1998] 4 All ER 225
29 Jul 1998 CA Chadwick LJ	Professional Negligence	1 Citers
	The solicitors had failed to advise the testator to issue a notice of severance of a joint tenancy, with the result that the house passed outside the will. Held: The plaintiff did have a remedy. "The duty owed by the solicitors to the testator is a duty to take care that effect his given to his testamentary intentions… The duty owed by the solicitors to the specific legatees is not a duty to take care to ensure that the specific legatee receives his legacy. It, also, is a duty to take care to ensure that effect is given to the testator's testamentary intentions. The loss from which the specific legatee is to be saved harmless is the loss from which he will suffer if the effect is not given to the testator's testamentary intentions."
	Link[s] omitted

Lettice Concordie Johnson and Eleanor Doreen Simmons -v- Dr T M John and Waltham Forest Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1371
31 Jul 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Costs
	Link[s] omitted

Northern Rock Building Society -v- Hazel Archer; Brunning Hazel Archer -v- Hickmotts (Formerly, Hickmott, Elmhirst, Hargan and Co ) (a Firm); Hazel Archer -v- Hickmotts [1998] EWCA Civ 1375
31 Jul 1998 CA	Undue Influence, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Connolly-Martin -v- Davis
17 Aug 1998 ChD	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant appealed against the striking out of her claim for negligence against counsel for her opponent who had signed a consent order purporting to give an undertaking from his client when in fact the client did not consent. Held: The appeal succeeded. A barrister was liable in negligence and breach of warranty to his lay client where he gave an undertaking to the court without first obtaining his client's express authority to do so.

Sasea Finance Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- KPMG (A Firm)
25 Aug 1998 ChD	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where an auditor had negligently failed to identify the insolvency of a company and to warn against payment of dividends, the auditor was liable in damages for dividends wrongly paid.

Chappel -v- Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
2 Sep 1998 Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence - Causation - Failure to warn of inherent risk of operation about which patient had specifically inquired - Plaintiff would have inevitably required the same operation at some time in the future but would have postponed the operation performed if properly warned - Surgery was performed with due skill and care but risk materialised - Whether there was a causal connection between failure to warn and plaintiff's physical injury - Whether damage suffered was physical injury or loss of chance. Negligence - Damages - Whether damages should be discounted to account for possible future events. Medicine - Medical practitioners - Failure to warn of inherent risk of operation about which patient had specifically inquired.
	Link[s] omitted

Hurst -v- Penningtons (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1420
3 Sep 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Anne Worby Rachel Worby David Worby -v- Jonathan Arnold Rosser [1998] EWCA Civ 1438
17 Sep 1998 CA	Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Frost -v- James Finlay Bank Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1441
17 Sep 1998 CA	Banking, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Morgan -v- Thompsons Solicitors [1998] EWCA Civ 1580
21 Oct 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Application for leave to appeal.
	Link[s] omitted

Emma Kelly Arkless (a Minor Suing By Her Mother and Next Friend Diane Arkless) -v- Leicestershire Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1589
22 Oct 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	[ Bailii ]

Richard David Lewis Showan and Sheila Anne Showan -v- Elizabeth Rosemary Yapp and Messrs Glanvilles Damant (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1668
3 Nov 1998 CA	Trusts, Land, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Pamela Helen Phelps -v- Mayor and Burgesses London Borough of Hillingdon [1998] EWCA Civ 1686; [1999] 1 WLR 500; [1998] ELR 38
4 Nov 1998 CA Stuart-Smith LJ	Professional Negligence, Education, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff claimed damages for the negligent failure of an educational psychologist employed by a local authority to identify that the plaintiff was dyslexic. Held: An educational psychologist has no duty of care to a child, as opposed to her employer, in failing to diagnose dyslexia which was not an injury but a congenital condition: (Evans LJ) "dyslexia is not itself an injury and I do not see how failure to ameliorate or mitigate its effects can be an injury." No economic loss damages occurred until the psychologist adopted a particular duty to the child.
	Link[s] omitted

Margaret Patricia Briody (Formerly Moore) -v- St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1682
4 Nov 1998 CA	Limitation, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Frazer Harris -v- Scholfield Roberts & Hill (A Firm) [1998] 2 FLR 679
4 Nov 1998 FD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.

Kieron Brady -v- Sunderland Association Football Club Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1780
17 Nov 1998 CA	Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
	The plaintiff appealed refusal of his claim for damages. He had suffered injury whilst training for football, and alleged negligence agains the club and its doctors. He accepted that his contract imposed no higher duty than the standard one. The judge had found the condition to be one which a doctor might see once in his lifetime. Held: The appeal was dismissed: "Only in rare cases will this court do so either because the judge has misunderstood some important evidence, misconstrued or overlooked documentary evidence inconsistent with his findings or for some other reason this court is convinced that he has reached the wrong conclusion notwithstanding his advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses."
	Link[s] omitted

Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd -v- John Clarkson Spink [1998] EWCA Civ 1783
17 Nov 1998 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation
	Link[s] omitted

Robert James Walker -v- Geo H Medlicott and Son (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1806; [1999] 1 All ER
19 Nov 1998 CA Simon Brown LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir Christopher Slade	Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence, Damages	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant said that the defendant solicitor had negligently failed to include in the will a specific devise of property in his favour. Held: A beneficiary who alleged negligent failure of a will draftsman to include a gift to him in a will should first establish whether rectification of the will was available, and only after failure then seek to claim under professional negligence. The solicitors had failed to carry out the testator's express instructions, and a claim by a disappointed beneficiary might stand. However the claimant here also could seek rectification of the will. The recovery of damages against a negligent solicitor had the effect of enabling the beneficiaries under the Will to retain "adventitious benefits", and accordingly fairness required that the beneficiaries share the cost of putting things right by means of rectification proceedings.
	Administration of Justice Act 1970 20
	Link[s] omitted

Kenneth Corbett Briggs -v- Dr James Pitt-Payne Dr Malcolm Lias [1998] EWCA Civ 1811
20 Nov 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Leppington -v- Coal Authority
25 Nov 1998 QBD	Professional Negligence
	A request to give details of mining activities within the vicinity of a property had no meaning save from the purpose of its use. Nearby shafts or adits which posed no threat to the stability of the property had been properly omitted from report.

Small -v- Hodgson [1998] EWCA Civ 1869
27 Nov 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	[ Bailii ]

James Finlay Bank Limited -v- Frost [1998] EWCA Civ 1867
27 Nov 1998 CA	Banking, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Patel and Another -v- Hooper & Jackson (A Firm)
3 Dec 1998 CA	Professional Negligence
	The measure of damages for a negligent survey for mortgage purposes and relied upon by purchase was the general diminution of value together with any particular further losses, since if the claimant had been properly advised would have purchased other similar costing property.

Linda Anne Roberts -v- Adrian John Winbow (3) [1998] EWCA Civ 1917
4 Dec 1998 CA Lord Justice Roch, And Mrs Justice Hale	Limitation, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor's slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, but the main part of which is not to the plaintiff’s knowledge attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, does the three year period commence when the plaintiff has knowledge that the lesser part of the injury is attributable, or does the three year period start only when the plaintiff has knowledge that the greater part of the injury is attributable? The discovery of a cause of action was at the point where a plaintiff discovered that a lesser part of her injuries were attributable to the cause, not later when the majority was attributed, and limitation ran accordingly.
	Limitation Act 1980 11(4)
	Link[s] omitted

Byrne and Byrne -v- Hall Pain & Foster (a Firm) and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1939; [1999] 1 WLR 1849
11 Dec 1998 CA Simon Brown, Otton, Schiemann LJJ	Limitation, Professional Negligence
	The cause of action in an action for professional negligence in purchase of land ran from the date of exchange of contracts not completion, and the limitation period was to be calculated accordingly.
	Limitation Act 1980
	Link[s] omitted

Arthur J S Hall & Co (A Firm) -v- Simons; Barratt -v- Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Cockbone -v- Atkinson Dacre & Slack (A Firm); Harris -v- Schofield Roberts & Hill (A Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1943; [1999] 3 WLR 873
14 Dec 1998 CA	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Though the court must balance the need for protection against negligence by lawyers with the need to avoid re-litigation of issues settled by courts, case law dictates some exemptions, but these must be limited and any doubt resolved against the practitioner.
	Link[s] omitted

Phillip John Siddell; Carol Ann Siddell -v- Smith Cooper & Partners (a Firm) (Lead Action) Sydeny Ronald Verdun Follows; Marlene Follows -v- Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 1959; [1999] PNLR 511
18 Dec 1998 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim at an early stage in a developing area of law if when all the facts are know the claim might succeed.
	Link[s] omitted

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council -v- Shaw [1998] EWHC 2007 (QB); (1999) 1 LGLR 385; [2000] BLGR 9
21 Dec 1998 QBD Bell J	Local Government, Employment, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted