Professional Negligence - 1999

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 73 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Gray & Another -v- Buss Merton (a firm) [1999] PNLR 882
1999 Rougier J	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	Rougier J said: "It must, surely, be up to the solicitor to take the appropriate steps to clarify precisely the extent of his retainer, and this, sadly, Mr Lightfoot failed to do when, in my judgment, the circumstances demanded that he should. This view is, if not analogous, at least consonant, so it seems to me, with that line of cases such as Crossley v Crowther (1851) 9 Hare 384, and Re Payne (1912) 28 T.L.R. 201, to the effect that, where there is a dispute between solicitor and client as to the terms of any retainer, prima facie it is the client's version which should prevail. It seems to me that the underlying basis for this principle must be that it is the client who actually knows what he wants the solicitor to do, and so it is the solicitor's business to ascertain the client's wishes accurately, bearing in mind the possibility that the client, through ignorance of the correct terminology, may not have correctly expressed it".

Houghton -v- Bennetts Solicitors (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 550
13 Jan 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Clonard Developments Limited -v- Humberts (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 575
15 Jan 1999 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A judge was right to acknowledge that a party's expert witness might be biased, and assess accordingly. Where a surveyor's valuation was negligent there was still no liability where the plaintiff did not show it had relied upon the valuation.
	Link[s] omitted

Dragica Brick -v- Colleys Professional Services [1999] EWCA Civ 589
18 Jan 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Eli John Onslow-Edwards; Cecilia Irene Onslow-Edwards -v- Peter B Cameron (Trading As Cameron & Partners); Harvey and Sproull (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 624
21 Jan 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Solicitors who had leant a deposit to clients buying commercial properties where contracts had not been exchanged for the sale of other properties and finance was not in place, were not negligent having advised on the risks to a commercially aware client.
	[ Bailii ]

Al-Sabah -v- Ali and Others [1999] EWHC 840 (Ch); [1999] EG 11
22 Jan 1999 ChD Ferris J	Torts - Other, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimant alleged the fraudulent transfer of properties by use of a forged power of attorney. Held. The power was fraudulent. Solicitors had acted under the instructions of the agent. The court referred to the Law Society's practice guidance after Penn and said "If instructions come to a solicitor not from the client himself but from a third party claiming to represent the client, the solicitor needs to take special care to satisfy himself that the client wishes him to act, by seeking the client personally or obtaining written confirmation from the client or taking some other step which is sufficient, in the circumstances, to show that the client wants the solicitor to act for him in the matter in question." Nor had the solicitors verified that the vendor had received the proceeds of sale. They were liable in negligence. Any indemnity from the Land Registry would be reduced according to the contribution from the solicitors.
	Land Registration Act 1925 83(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Midland Bank Plc -v- Cox McQueen (A Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 656; [1999] Lloyd's Rep. PN 223
26 Jan 1999 CA Lord Woolf MR, Mummery LJ, Mantell LJ	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Solicitors were instructed by the bank to obtain the signature of a client and of his wife to a motgage. The deed was signed by the husband and a woman pretending to be the wife. Held: The court said that it was asked whether the bank intended to ask for, and whether the solicitors intended to give, a promise to answer for the fraud of the customer even if that fraud could not be detected by exercising all proper care The solicitors who had been asked to obtain the signature to a mortgage on behalf of a bank, but who were misled as to the identity of the signor were not liable in negligence. The nature of the transaction was that the bank charged to carry risk, not the solicitors. Lord Woolf MR said: "In my judgment the decision in Zwebner should not be given a wide application. To do so would ignore the wider consequences of our decision. If commercial institutions such as banks wish to impose an absolute liability on members of a profession they should do so in clear terms so that the solicitors can appreciate the extent of their obligation which they are accepting. Frequently this sort of task is undertaken by small firms of solicitors who are already finding it difficult to remain viable. This is partly because they are heavily burdened by the costs of insurance. If they are to be liable for very substantial sums of damages as a result of the fraud of the customers of the bank which they cannot prevent, then either they will have to withdraw from providing those services or they will have to charge for their services at a rate which is very different from that which was charged here. Neither result is in the interests of the banks or their customers or the public. The result is not in the interests of the banks' customers as they will not benefit from the explanation of the transaction from a member of the legal profession who is qualified to give that explanation. It is not in the interests of banks as they will have to pay higher fees which they may or may not seek to recover from their customers. It is not in the interest of the public because it is important that legal services are readily available and this will not be the case if small firms are unable to survive. Unless the language used in a retainer clearly has this consequence, the courts should not be ready to impose obligations on solicitors which even the most careful solicitor may not be able to meet." Mummery LJ said: "The letter was a retainer by the bank of a firm of solicitors to perform professional services of an advisory and ministerial kind for the bank. Professional services provided by the solicitors would not normally involve the guaranteeing of a result by them, such as verifying the identity of Mrs. Dukes, let alone providing the bank with what would amount to an insurance policy against the risk of fraud occurring in a transaction entered into by the bank with its customer, Mr. Dukes; a transaction about which the solicitors were told little by the bank and in which they had no input or influence. The bank agreed to lend a substantial sum to their customer. That customer was Mr. Dukes. Mrs. Dukes was not a customer of the bank. She was not a client of the solicitors retained by the bank to obtain her signature. It is improbable that the solicitors would agree to provide to the bank more than the exercise of the reasonable care and skill of a competent solicitor in relation to the task to be undertaken. It was part of the bank's case against the solicitors that the retainer was subject to the usual implied duty of care. That implied term also governed the obligation to obtain the signature of Mrs. Dukes. The judge rejected the case of negligence against the solicitors. There is no appeal against that. The bank's case on the appeal rests on the contention that the wording of the retainer was apt to create an absolute obligation which would be breached by the solicitors, no matter what precautions they might have taken and what lengths they might have gone to ensure that the woman who signed the mortgage was Mrs. Dukes. For the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated by the Master of the Rolls, I am unable to accept the contention that this retainer, when construed in the context in which it was given and accepted, was intended to have that far-reaching effect."
	Link[s] omitted

Pattison -v- Clarksons and Steele [1999] EWCA Civ 665
27 Jan 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Lakey -v- Merton Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 704
3 Feb 1999 CA Nourse, Thorpe, Potter LJJ	Professional Negligence
	A judge need not always give reasons for preferring the evidence of one expert witness over another in a medical negligence claim. In such matters experts sometimes take positions extreme and favouring the side paying them.
	Link[s] omitted

Al-Sabah -v- Ali and Others [1999] CLC 1469,
3 Feb 1999 ChD Mance J	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The solicitor employers of a solicitor who had acted under powers of attorney in transactions between the attorney and the principal which later proved fraudulent were negligent. The Land Registry was liable for the balance of damage suffered. Mance J: ".. the answer to this problem seems to lie in recognising that, for dishonest assistance, the defendant's dishonesty must have been towards the plaintiff in relation to property held or potentially held on trust or constructive trust, rather than the introduction of a separate criterion of knowledge of any such trust."
	Land Registration Act 1925 83

Abbey National Plc -v- Frost (Formerly Practising As Harold Weston Frost and Co) and Solicitors' Indemnity Fund Limited Intervenor [1999] EWCA Civ 707
4 Feb 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	Link[s] omitted

Mercantile Credit Co Ltd and Another -v- Fenwick and Others; Same -v- Speechly Bircham [1999] EWCA Civ 778
12 Feb 1999 CA	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence, Banking
	Solicitors retained to obtain signatures to a bank's charge by husband and wife to secure his debts was required to act in accordance with current good practice. No duty to ensure certificate obtained that husband and wife had separate advisers.
	Link[s] omitted

Gregory -v- Shepherds
17 Feb 1999 ChD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	An English solicitor, employing a lawyer in another jurisdiction to purchase land for a client, was not himself negligent, for a failure of that foreign lawyer. The lawyer was not employed as a kind of sub-contractor.

Alliance & Leicester Plc -v- Lewis
17 Feb 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	The issue of proceedings within only 12 days of six year limitation period followed by an 18 month delay was not under the present rules sufficient to warrant a strike out, since insufficient prejudice shown, but would probably under the new rules.

Jenifer Horsfall Violet Ruth Powell -v- Haywards (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 816; Times, 11 March 1999; [1999] 1 FLR 1182
18 Feb 1999 CA Hirst LJ, Mummery LJ, Buxton LJ	Wills and Probate, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	Solicitors appealed an order for payment of damages for professional negligence. The solicitors replied that the plaintiff should have mitigated her damages. Held: The plaintiffs had not failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. A disappointed beneficiary claiming for professional negligence against solicitors did not first have to seek to minimize his loss by seeking rectification of the will, where this would be unlikely to produce a practical improvement in his position.
	Link[s] omitted

HF Pension Trustees Ltd -v- Ellison and Others [1999] Lloyds LR (PN) 489
24 Feb 1999 ChD Jonathan Parker J	Limitation, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	In an allegation of professional negligence which had lead to a transfer of funds, time ran for limitation purposes from the time of the transfer, and not from the point later when it became apparent that the legal advice may have been negligent. A solicitor had advised that a transfer of pension funds was lawful, but a later decision of the courts clarified that this was wrong. The limitation period was not extended because the unlawfulness was a matter of law and all the facts had been known: “What the plaintiff’s argument boils down to is that although it knew all the material facts it did not know until later that those facts gave rise to a claim in negligence. In my judgment, however, in cases under section 14A as in personal injury cases, their ignorance that the known facts may give rise to a claim in law cannot postpone the running of time under the 1980 Act. As I read the sections and the authorities, both section 14 and section 14A are concerned exclusively with matters of fact provable by evidence, as opposed to matters of English law, in respect of which evidence is inadmissible.”
	Latent Damage Act 1986 - Limitation Act 1980 14A

Laurena Polson (By Her Next Friend and Mother Pauline Polson) -v- Dr Nihal Tissa De Silva [1999] EWCA Civ 896
4 Mar 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Davis -v- Howard Saul Jacobs Camden and Islington Health Authority Novartis Pharmaceuticals (Uk) Limited Howard Clive Smith [1999] EWCA Civ 911
5 Mar 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation
	Link[s] omitted

Keith Walker -v- Wolferstans (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 939
10 Mar 1999 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	The plaintiff sought damages against the defendants for having allowed his claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to fail by limitation. He now sought leave to appeal out of time after his claim was struck out for failure to comply with an unless order. Held: The appeal failed. The plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any error in the judge's decision.
	[ Bailii ]

James Frederick Shade -v- Compton Partnership (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 951
11 Mar 1999 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant sought leave to appeal the striking out of his claim for negligence against his former solicitors. Held: A point of law of sufficient interest was raised to justify leave to appeal.
	Link[s] omitted

Derry -v- Ministry of Defence [1999] EWCA Civ 1016; [1999] PIQR P204
18 Mar 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Armed Forces
	Where an army doctor was accused of failing to diagnose a serviceman's ocular cancer, the negligence which caused the consequent injury was caused by the delay in a correct diagnosis, and the treatment fell within the scope of Crown Immunity.
	Crown Proceedings Act 1947 10
	[ Bailii ]

Christopher Gaul -v- Robert Raeburn [1999] EWCA Civ 1048
22 Mar 1999 CA	Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages, Health Professions
	[ Bailii ]

Burrows -v- Forest Health Care NHS Trust [1999] EWCA Civ 1147
31 Mar 1999 CA	Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Summit Financial Group Ltd -v- Slaughter & May (a Firm)
2 Apr 1999 ChD	Professional Negligence
	A law firm dividing the drafting of substantial documentation between different sections of the firm must be liable in negligence, if no one senior person has overall responsibility and an error ensues. No need to seek rectification first.

St Helen's and Knowsley Area Health Authority -v- Briody [1999] EWCA Civ 1229
21 Apr 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Health Professions
	Link[s] omitted

Merivale Moore Plc; Merivale Moore Construction Limited -v- Strutt and Parker (a Firm) [1999] 1 EGLR 171; [1999] EWCA Civ 1239; [2000] PNLR 498
22 Apr 1999 CA Buxton LJ	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An agent valuing a commercial property and estimating the return to be obtained without qualification, was responsible in damages where the clients would not have proceeded on properly qualified advice. The process of valuation does not admit of precise conclusions, and thus that the conclusions of competent and careful valuers may differ, perhaps by a substantial margin, without one of them being negligent. The court first tests whether the case falls outside the range of proper valuations, the 'bracket'. The bracket is not to be determined in a mechanistic way, divorced from the facts of the instant case.
	Link[s] omitted

Electra Private Equity Partners (a Limited Partnership) and others -v- KPMG Peat Marwick (a Firm) and others [1999] EWCA Civ 1247; [2001] 1 BCLC 589
23 Apr 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	In interlocutory appeals some relaxation of the strictness of the conditions set down in Ladd v Marshall might be appropriate, according to the nature of the interlocutory hearing and the individual circumstances of the case. That would particularly be so where the battleground or its timing were not of the appellant's choice.
	Link[s] omitted

100 Old Broad Street Ltd & others -v- Sidley and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 1286
28 Apr 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Macaulay and Farley -v- Premium Life Assurance Co Ltd Unreported, 29 April 1999
29 Apr 1999 Park J	Professional Negligence, Damages, Wills and Probate	Casemap 1 Citers
	Executors claimed as damages the amount of Inheritance Tax which became payable on death as a result of the negligent advice given to the deceased by the defendant. Held: The damage claimed (liability for inheritance tax) was not suffered until the date of death. "The claimants are not suing in respect of a lost opportunity suffered by Mrs Macaulay in her lifetime. They are suing in respect of the IHT liability which arose on Mrs Macaulay's death and which did not exist until she died." and "the damage relied on as a central ingredient of the cause of action is the amount of IHT payable by Mrs Macaulay's estate. In my judgment, it is of some relevance that the IHT payable on death is imposed directly on the personal representatives as such. It is not imposed on the deceased "

Lloyds Bank Plc -v- James Patrick Paul Quinn and Andrea Judith Quinn and Challinor Roberts Cooksey (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1352
6 May 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Joyce Neate -v- Swatton Hughes and Company [1999] EWCA Civ 1372
10 May 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation
	Link[s] omitted

Oakes -v- Kingsley Napley (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1389
12 May 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Kapur -v- J W Francis and Co [1999] EWCA Civ 1430
18 May 1999 CA	Insurance, Professional Negligence	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Notwithstanding a finding by a High Court Judge that Mr Kapur "had shaded the truth", and "lacked frankness in his evidence", the Court set aside a credibility finding on the basis that not only was there a lack of reasoning as to why the Judge preferred Mr Kapur’s evidence, but that no such finding could appropriately have been made.
	Link[s] omitted

Abbey National Plc -v- Clive Travers and Co (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1426
18 May 1999 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown , Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Thorpe	Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions	1 Cites
	The defendants appealed an order for discovery saying it would infringe their duty of confidence to their clients. The firm had acted for the buyer, seller and lender. A fraud on the lender was alleged. The solicitors sought to rely upon the privilege without having asked the clients who owned it. Held: The issue of fraud or impropriety had been raised sufficiently in the pleadings to justify the request for dicslosure.
	Link[s] omitted

Birmingham Midshires Building Society -v- Infields (A Firm) [1999] EWHC Technology 232
20 May 1999 TCC Judge Bowsher QC	Professional Negligence, Trusts, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	The defendant solicitors had acted for the lenders and borrower in a mortgage transaction. The claimant sought repayment of the entire loan, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, in having preferred the interests of one client over those of another. The betrayal of trust inherent in a breach of duty must be a deliberate act. They alleged that he knew the property was to be used for letting in breach of their offer terms. The solicitor understood the lender to know of this intention, and was negligent in not confirming it, but there was no deliberate act in breach of trust. To extend the limitation period under s32, the claimants must show that they could not have discovered the breach with reasonable diligence. They also knew of the possibility of a claim before receiving the file. The could not extend the limitation period under s 14A by their delay in obtaining expert advice.
	Limitation Act 1980 14A 32

Brock (Suing By his Next Friend Ronald George Brock) -v- Frenchay Healthcare Trust [1999] EWCA Civ 1446
20 May 1999 CA Simon Brown, Auld Thorpe LJJ	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Birmingham Midshires Building Society -v- Infields (A Firm) [1999] EWHC Technology 232
20 May 1999 TCC	Limitation, Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Andrew and others (Trustees of the Air Travel Trust and the Civil Aviation Authority) -v- Kounnis Freeman (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1499
27 May 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Connolly-Martin -v- Davis [1999] EWCA Civ 1509; [1999] Lloyds Rep PN 790; [1999] PNLR 826; [1999] All ER (D) 552
27 May 1999 CA Brooke, Beldam, Mummery LJJ	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 court an undertaking on behalf of his client had no duty of care to his own client's opponent, unless there was something to indicate a particular adoption of such a duty. This applies even where the undertaking was given in excess of his authority and proved unenforceable. The authorities did not support the proposition "that counsel for one party may in the absence of circumstances evidencing a voluntary assumption of responsibility to that other party owe a legally enforceable duty of care to that party" and " as a general principle counsel owes a duty to his lay client to do for him all that he properly can, with due care and attention. Counsel owes no such duties to those who are not his clients. He is no guardian of their interests, and indeed what he does for his client may be hostile and injurious to his opponents. In the ordinary course of adversarial litigation counsel or solicitor owes no duty to the lay client’s adversary."
	Link[s] omitted

Worby, Worby and Worby -v- Rosser [1999] EWCA Civ 1520; [2000] PNLR 140
28 May 1999 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Chadwick	Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Three potential beneficiaries sought payment from a solicitor of the costs of resisting the grant of probate to a will, saying that he had owed them a duty of care to ensure that the testator did not execute a later will in circumstances in which he lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to the malign influence of a third party. They succeeded, and sought their costs direct from the solicitor. Held: The estate had suffered no proven loss. A solicitor, following his client's instructions on the drafting of a new will, carried no duty of care to the expectancies of beneficiaries under an earlier will which was to be revoked by the new one. An estate facing an unmeritorious claim could not recover its costs from a solicitor who did not have a duty to the claimants.
	Link[s] omitted

N -v- Agrawal
9 Jun 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	A doctor examining a victim of a rape, but who failed to give evidence at court was not liable to the victim for further psychiatric damages caused by the resultant collapse of the prosecution. There was no doctor/patient relationship to give rise to a duty of care.

Badgepalm Limited -v- Peter James Jones and Freeman Johnson (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1576
15 Jun 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Anne Purcell -v- Lisa Wadeson [1999] EWCA Civ 1600
17 Jun 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	The plaintiff sought leave to appeal dismissal of her claim for damages for negligent dental treatment. Her claim for psychiatric damages was dismissed as not having been caused by the treatment failure. Held: The judge had considered all the evidence, and no ground for appeal were shown.
	Link[s] omitted

Drivers Jonas (a Firm) -v- Ralph J Lehmann (Acting By Talia Lehmann, her Personal Representative [1999] EWCA Civ 1626; [1999] EWCA Civ 1627; [1999] EWCA Civ 1644; [1999] EWCA Civ 1645
21 Jun 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Holder -v- Ealing Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1688
25 Jun 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

FNCB Ltd -v- Barnet Devanney and Co Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1729
1 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Insurance, Insurance	Casemap 1 Citers
	An insurance broker was asked to provide insurance to protect a mortgagee but did not arrange mortgage protection cover. Held: He was in breach of his contract even though the law relating to such insurance was unsure. He was not entitled to try to resolve such issues, but was instead required to act in accordance with his contractual obligations.
	Link[s] omitted

Neville Leeson Cox -v- Hunt and Coombs (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1753
2 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Frost -v- James Finlay Bank Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1789
8 Jul 1999 CA	Banking, Professional Negligence
	[ Bailii ]

Willerby Caravan Company Limited -v- John H Liddle; John Rawdon Binnington; H C Robinson and Sons (a Firm) and D J Broady Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1809
9 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

James Brocklesby -v- Armitage and Guest (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1797; [2002] 1 WLR 598; [2001] 1 All ER 172
9 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A failure by an adviser to make his position clear when he thought he had been negligent, could constitute a "deliberate" act within section 32 even if the defendant’s actions were not motivated by any intention to deceive the claimant: "it is not necessary for the purpose of extending the limitation period pursuant to Section 32(1)(b) to demonstrate that the fact relevant to the claimant's right of action has been deliberately concealed in any sense greater than that the commission of the act was deliberate in the sense of being intentional and that that act or omission, as the case may be, did involve a breach of duty whether or not the actor appreciated that legal consequence."
	Limitation Act 1980 32(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Dempsey -v- National Westminster Bank Plc [1999] EWCA Civ 1853
15 Jul 1999 CA	Banking, Professional Negligence
	Application for permission to appeal out of time.
	Link[s] omitted

Stockler & Another -v- Hawker (T/a Robert Hawker and Associates) [1999] EWCA Civ 1876
16 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

General Mediterranean Holdings SA -v- Patel and Another [1999] EWHC 832 (Comm); [1999] Lloyds Rep PN 919; [1999] 2 Costs LR 10; [2000] 1 WLR 272; [1999] 3 All ER 673; [2000] UKHRR 273; [1999] PNLR 852; [2000] HRLR 54; [1999] CPLR 425
19 Jul 1999 QBD Toulson J	Legal Professions, Costs, Professional Negligence, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The new Civil Procedure Rules were ultra vires and invalid insofar as they purported to remove any right of a solicitor's client to assert his right of confidence as against his solicitor. The solicitor was therefore unable in this case to defend himself against a wasted costs order, but the court could allow for the refusal of the client to waive his privilege.
	Civil Procedure Act 1997 - Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No 1312
	Link[s] omitted

Carew -v- Bexley and Greenwich District Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1889
20 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Ogilvy & Mather Limited -v- Rubinstein Callingham Polden and Gale [1999] EWCA Civ 1896
20 Jul 1999 CA	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
	The claimant appealed against a finding on its claim for professional negligence against its former solicitors in the conduct of a claim against it.
	Link[s] omitted

Rushmer and Another -v- Countrywide Surveyors (1994) Ltd and Another
21 Jul 1999 TCC	Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The measure of damages for a negligent survey was either the excess paid, or the diminution of value. The question of the uncertainty of what decisions would have been taken had further surveys been made was of no significance. The wrongly surveyed building, being in this case a main building rather than an outbuilding, damages were also awarded for hire of storage space.

Hirst -v- Etherington and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 1850; [1999] Lloyds Rep PN 938
21 Jul 1999 CA	Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	A solicitor, who re-assured a lender that his guarantee of a borrower's loan, was given by him in the normal course of business, was not in fact so acting. The lender, if wanting to rely upon that re-assurance to claim against the solicitor's partner, was to show reasonable care and competence in assessing whether the assurance was given in the normal course of a solicitor's practice.
	[ Bailii ]

Shade -v- Compton Partnership (a Firm) [1999] EWCA Civ 1930
22 Jul 1999 CA	Limitation, Professional negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Maes Finance Limited, Mac No 1 Limited -v- Sharp & Partners (A Firm) 1995 ORB 984
27 Jul 1999 TCC	Professional Negligence

David Gower -v- London Borough of Bromley [1999] EWCA Civ 2012
29 Jul 1999 CA Auld LJ, Aldous LJ, Gage J	Professional Negligence, Education
	Link[s] omitted

Lyle -v- Chipchase (a Firm); Chipchase Jarvis & Co (a Firm); Hall; Mayo; Giebel; Godfrey; Wimble and Gardner [1999] EWCA Civ 2054
30 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Frederick James Izzard; Deborah Jean Izzard -v-Field Palmer (a Firm); Neville John Freeston; Ian Mckinnon Mead; Benjamin Norman Aubrey French and Ministry of Defence [1999] EWCA Civ 2045
30 Jul 1999 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap
	The plaintiffs purchased their property after a valuation report to their lenders prepared by the respondent. The property was on an estate which proved to have serious faults of construction, and the design had proved at fault. The property could not be sold. They sought damages. Held: The standard work for valuers stated that for such system built properties they could not be recommended without a clear full structural report. That had not been obtained. The appeal on liability by the valuer failed.
	Link[s] omitted

Curry's Group Plc -v- Martin [1999] 3 EGLR 165
13 Oct 1999 QBD Mr Michael Harvey QC	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The valuer valued a lease for a rent review clause, after advice, on the basis that the rent stated was to be a headline rent. The claim was dismissed because a valuer acting in such a situation was not substantially different from one undertaking a valuation. Valuation remained an uncertain art particularly where different bases of valuation might be appropriate. Possible incentives payable by the landlord were relevant considerations. The submission made on its behalf was that it was sufficient to show that the defendant was negligent in his methodology in a way that was adverse to it, and that damages are recoverable even though the rent determined was one that a reasonably competent surveyor could have determined. That submission was firmly based on Lion Nathan. The claimant submitted that Merivale Moore was decided per incuriam, on the ground that Lion Nathan did not appear to have been cited. Held: It was inconceivable that Lion Nathan overlooked Merivale. The doctrine of per incuriam does not apply to decisions of the Privy Council. He therefore held that he was bound to follow the ratio of Merivale Moore.

MacFarlane and Another -v- Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59; [1999] UKHL 50; [1999] 4 All ER 961
21 Oct 1999 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett	Damages, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Scotland	Casemap
	Despite a vasectomy, Mr MacFarlane fathered a child, and he and his wife sought damages for the cost of care and otherwise. He appealed a rejection of his claim. Held: The doctor undertakes a duty of care in regard to the prevention of pregnancy: it does not follow that the duty includes also avoiding the costs of rearing the child if born and accepted into the family. This is not the result of a public policy rule which would otherwise produce a different conclusion; it comes from the inherent limitation of the liability relied on. The claim for solatium stood, and the claim for expenses caused directly and immediately by the pregnancy and birth, including medical expenses (if any) and the costs of the layette, but the claim for damages in respect of the rearing of the child is dismissed. Lord Steyn: "It may be objected that the House must act like a court of law and not like a court of morals. That would only be partly right. The court must apply positive law. But a judge’s sense of the moral answer to a question, or the justice of the case, has been one of the great shaping forces of the common law. What may count in a situation of difficulty and uncertainty is not the subjective view of the judge but what he reasonably believes that the ordinary citizen would regard as right."
	Link[s] omitted

Pearson -v- Witherspoon [1999] EWCA Civ 3032; [2000] PNLR 110; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 151
22 Oct 1999 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Harrison and Another -v- Bloom Camillin (2001) PNLR 195
28 Oct 1999 ChD Neuberger J	Damages, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	When assessing the losses suffered by a plaintiff alleging that, through the professional negligence of his solicitors, he had lost the opportunity to pursue a similar action against his accountants, it was right to acknowledge, and allow for the fact that the vast majority of such actions came to be settled rather than going to full trial. The damages should reflect the uncertainties of litigation. The issue of law which would have arisen in the lost action should be treated as a question of fact in this dependent action.

Law Society -v- KPMG Peat Marwick and Others [2000] 1 All ER 515
3 Nov 1999 ChD Sir Richard Scott, VC	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	An accountant, auditing a firm of solicitors, and providing a certificate to the Law Society knew that the Society and its compensation fund would rely upon that certificate and so owed it a duty of care. A negligently given certificate could lead to delay in discovery of malpractice and so increase the costs to the fund.

Hammersmith Hospitals National Health Service Trust the Secretary of State for Health, Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority, The Medical Research Council, -v- Troup Bywaters and Anders (A Firm)
12 Nov 1999 TCC His Honour Judge John Toulmin Cmg Qc	Contract, Professional Negligence, Evidence
	Contract - professional negligence - duty of care - general consulting engineers - advice to NHS trust whether negligent - expert evidence - admissibility of evidence in the same profession with specialist professional expertise.

Penney and Others -v- East Kent Health Authority [2000] PNLR 323; [1999] EWCA Civ 3005
16 Nov 1999 CA	Professional Negligence, Health Professions	1 Cites 1 Citers
	A cervical smear screener could be liable in negligence if he failed to spot obvious abnormalities in a test result which indicated that further investigation was required. To say this is not to say that such screening tests were expected to achieve full reliability. The court should ask what was on the slide to be seen, what would be seen by someone taking reasonable care, and whether what was so seen by a competent screener be passed.
	Link[s] omitted

Little and Others -v- George Little Sebire and Co
17 Nov 1999 QBD	Damages, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers

Nunnerley and Another -v- Warrington Health Authority and Another
26 Nov 1999 QBD	Professional Negligence, Damages, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites
	Where negligent advice lead to the birth of a disabled child who would not otherwise have been conceived, the damages to be awarded could include the costs of educating and otherwise caring for the child beyond the age of eighteen. Such duties did not finish with the end of legal responsibility.

James -v- East Dorset Health Authority
7 Dec 1999 CA	Limitation, Professional Negligence
	A patient had an operation which appeared to have gone unsuccessfully, but only much later proved to have been the source of an injury. Time could only begin to run when the fact of the iunjury became known. He was not fixed with knowledge of the injury by an awareness of the deterioration following the operation.
	Limitation Act 1980 14

Charles -v- Hugh James Jones & Jenkins (A Firm) [2000] 1 WLR 1278
22 Dec 1999 CA	Personal Injury, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where a personal injury claimant's claim had been lost because of the solicitor's negligence, the notional time for assessment of damages was the time at which a trial might properly have been expected to have been held. This did not however preclude the admission of, for example, medical evidence which only became available after that date.