Professional Negligence - 2000

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 45 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Kenyon-Brown v Desmond Banks & Co [2000] PNLR 266
2000 Mance LJ	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers

Bristol and West Building Society -v- Baden Barnes and Groves [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 788
2000 CA	Limitation, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	cw Proposed amendments to a plaintiff's pleadings failed to prevent a striking out. The amendments either sought to advance by a different route the earlier claim which was bound to fail, or sought to introduce a new cause of action which was statute barred and did not derive from the same, or substantially the same, facts.

Webster -v- Cooper & Burnett [2000] PNLR 240
2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation	Casemap 1 Citers

Margaret Patricia Briody -v- St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 01 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 178
21 Jan 2000 QBD The Hon. Mrs Justice Ebsworth Dbe	Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against public policy to award them. In this case, the chances of success were also still very small. Such a claim, properly made might be recoverable under other circumstances.
	Link[s] omitted

Harris -v- Bolt Burdon (A Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 3037; [2000] CP Rep 70; [2000] CPLR 9
2 Feb 2000 CA	Limitation, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	A case is suitable for striking out which raises an unwinnable case, where continuance of the proceedings is without any possible benefit and would waste resources on both sides.
	Link[s] omitted

Kent -v- Griffiths and others [2000] EWCA Civ 3017; [2000] 2 WLR 1158; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2001] QB 36; [2000] PIQR P57; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 109
3 Feb 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites
	Damages in negligence were sought when the defendant ambulance service were said to have been late in responding. Held. The defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant.
	Link[s] omitted

Kent -v- Griffiths and Others (No 2) [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2001] 1 QB 36; [2000] EWCA Civ 25
10 Feb 2000 CA Lord Woolf MR Aldous and Laws LJJ	Professional Negligence, Health Professions	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An ambulance service could be liable in negligence in respect of its response to an emergency call-out where for no good reason there was an unreasonable delay in responding, and the servivice had accepted the call. The ambulance service was distinguishable from the fire and police services. They owed a duty over and above the need not to add to the claimant's suffering. There could be no rational reason for not responding. There was a duty of care, and the delay added to the injury. Taking an example of a police officer the example of a police officer helping a pedestrian across the road: "If the policeman assumes this task there is no reason of policy or proximity why he should be in any different position from a school teacher who performs this task and, if this is appropriate on the facts, is liable for negligence."
	Link[s] omitted

Dickinson (T/a John Dickinson Equipment Finance) -v- Rushmer (T/a F J Associates) [2000] EWCA Civ 42
14 Feb 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Beth Linda Matthews (an Infant By Her Mother and Next Friend Janice England Formerly Matthews) -v- East Suffolk Health Authority [2000] EWCA Civ 58
25 Feb 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Howkins & Harrison (A Firm) -v- Tyler and Another
9 Mar 2000 ChD	Damages, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Having paid out £400,000 to a lender as damages for a negligent survey valuation after default in repayments by the defendant, the claimant sought to recover the payment from the defendant under the Act. The application was refused. The Act could only operate for a claim for the same damage. What was lost by the lender from the default was not the same. Compensation was not the same as recovery of a debt, and the claimant could not claim a subrogation for the lender.
	Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1(1)

Rex Goose -v- Wilson Sandford and Co (a Firm) (No 2) [2000] EWCA Civ 73; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 189
14 Mar 2000 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Jenmain Builders and Others -v- Steed & Steed (A Firm) 2000 BNLR 616
20 Mar 2000 CA Chadwick LJ	Professional Negligence, Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant firm of solicitors acted on the sale of property, but failed to notify a purchaser that he was in a contract race and that another contract had been sent out. The claimant would have been able to exchange, and to have acquired the property. Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own professional rules and were liable, even though in this case the damages were minimal in the absence of any proof of loss of profits. Chadwick LJ said:- "This was a property with development potential. It is common ground that this property was no longer to be used as a village hall. It would have to be used for some other purpose; and there would have to be some development so that it could be used for that purpose. The question was: for what development could planning permission be obtained and how valuable would the property be on completion of that development? But those are the factors which a properly informed market will take into account in fixing the market value of property. The profit potential of the property is an element to be taken into account in fixing its market value. It is not suggested that there was anything special about this property to the appellants as purchasers. It is not suggested that there were not other developers in the market for property of this nature who could have made a proper assessment of the value of this property. The problem for the appellants in the present case is that they never sought to persuade the judge - and never adduced evidence to establish - that the market value of this property, Dukes Hall, was anything greater than the £67,500 which the Parish Council was seeking. It is for those reasons that the claim for loss of profits is one which the court could not entertain in this case. . . In the present case, there is no evidence that these appellants would not have been able to purchase other property in the market which they could develop profitably with the use of the money which they did not lay out in the purchase of Dukes Hall. There is no evidence that the respondents, insofar as their duty lay in contract, were aware of any special circumstances which made it impossible for the respondents to employ their funds in the ordinary course of their business, or of any circumstances which suggested that this property was being sold at an under-value. Indeed, in the circumstances that they were acting for the vendors, the Parish Council, it would be most unlikely that they would regard the property as being sold at an under- value rather than at market price".

Gilrose Finance Limited -v- Ellis Gould [2000] UKPC 14
23 Mar 2000 PC	Commonwealth, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	PC (New Zealand) An investor had agreed to invest in a tour by a sports star. The tour failed, and the propmeter turned out to have criminal convictions for dishonesty. He had asked his solicitor to look into the matter, and complained that the solicitor had failed to identify and mention several matters which would have caused him not to invest. Held: There were several factors which should have suggested caution to the plaintiff. It was not a case where he went to his solicitor for and relied solely upon advice on the law, but the advice from the solicitor was only one source of the information upon which he acted. Some apportionment was proper. The court of appeal had correctly set the standard for interefring wit hthe judge;s findings of fact, and there was no reason to disturb tat decision.
	Link[s] omitted

Ball -v- Banner and Others; Neill Clark (A Firm) -v- Healey & Baker (A Firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 569
23 Mar 2000 ChD Hart J	Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	A valuer had described expected values for an property proposed as an investment promoted by a co-defendant. The valuation and prediction as to how long it might take to have it let had contributed to the representations leading to the investments being made and the assessments had been made without any effective degree of analysis or care, and the company was responsible to make a contribution of one quarter. The contribution was properly claimed since it was four square with the original claim. The "damage in question" meant the loss suffered by the investors from entering into the transaction. Sections 2 (3) (a) and (b) made it "clear that persons may be liable in respect of the same damage without necessarily being liable in the same amounts".
	Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1 2(3)

Thornton Springer -v- NEM Insurance Co Ltd and others
30 Mar 2000 QBD	Insurance, Professional Negligence
	The claimants were a firm of accountants who had been sued along with one partner for professional negligence. Their insurers agreed to fund the defence, which was successful. The partner was liable, The insurers declined to pay up, asserting that the practice had not been liable within the policy. The court held against the insurers. The claims against the partnership and partner were in substance the same, and fell within the scope of the cover.

Cormack and Another -v- Washbourne, Formerly Trading As Washbourne & Co (A Firm)
30 Mar 2000 CA	Costs, Professional Negligence, Insurance
	Where a claimant succeeded in his claim against a party, it was wrong to award costs against an insurer third party who had supported the defence where such costs exceeded the limit of liability under the financial limit of the indemnity. The insurer had been given conduct of the litigation, and only at a late stage informed the claimant of the limit on indemnity, and after the costs already exceeded that limit. Were these circumstances exceptional? No, the action of the insurers was not sufficiently self-motivated, and had been in good faith.

Cottingham and Another -v- Attey Bower & Jones (A Firm) [2000] EGCS 48; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 591; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 591
19 Apr 2000 ChD Rimmer J	Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	A solicitor acted on a purchase in 1993. He asked for but did not receive copies of building regulations consents from 1985. He went ahead anyway. Held: He had been negligent. He had been under a duty to continue the investigation, and to advise his clients that the replies relating to these consents appeared to be misleading. Some consents had been refused, and there remained a small risk of proceedings by the local authority for an injunction under section 36 (6) of the Building Act 1984, even though time limits had expired for other enforcement purposes. A solicitor is generally under a duty to provide specific information or advice, and not to advise on the wisdom of transactions in general. The fact that the claimant would not have purchased the property but for his negligence did not mean that the defendant was liable for every consequences which would not have happened but for the negligence. The loss for which he is responsible will normally be limited to the consequences of the specific information being inaccurate. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defect.
	Building Act 1984 36(1) 36(2)

Gibbons and Another -v- Nelsons (A Firm) and Another [2000] PNLR 734
21 Apr 2000 ChD Blackburne J	Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate, Legal Professions	Casemap
	The claimant was potentially interested in a fund as a beneficiary if her sister had exercised a power of appointment in her favour. She claimed that one firm of solicitors, who drafted a Will in 1986 for her sister, were negligent because that Will had the effect of exercising the power in favour of various charities, and that a second firm who drafted a Will in 1994, were similarly negligent in that the Will was in similar terms but with different charities nominated in not spotting and dealing with the point. Held: For a solicitor who drafts a will to be liable to a disappointed beneficiary who might have taken an interest under the will, where he was unaware of the particular individual, he must be shown at least to have been aware both of the benefit intended to be created, and of the class of beneficiaries to which it would apply. Once a solicitor accepted instructions, it was his responsibility to show that his responsibility did not extend to the aspect of the will under which the claim arises. That burden was discharged in this case.

Mortgage Corporation -v- Lambert & Co (A Firm) and Another [2000] PNLR 820
24 Apr 2000 CA	Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	If it was alleged that a lender could should have been aware of an overvaluation of a property so as to start the limitation clock, the owner must satisfy the court that it was reasonable at the time alleged for the lender have become obliged to obtain a retrospective valuation. That burden was not carried in this case.
	Limitation Act 1980 14A(10)

Raja -v- Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc
16 May 2000 ChD	Limitation, Professional Negligence
	The obligation of a mortgagee having taken possession of a property to obtain a proper price, was an obligation due in equity, and not either under the contract for the loan or as associated with the speciality agreement giving the property in charge. Nevertheless the claim was akin to an action for damages for negligence, and the period of limitation governing the action was six years.
	Limitation Act 1980 2

Robert Mark Gordon -v- J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 173; [2000] Lloyds LR PN 605
24 May 2000 CA Kennedy LJ, Kay LJ	Damages, Limitation, Financial Services, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant solicitors had negligently advised the claimant in connection with a mortgage scheme he operated for customers. His case was that the defendants had negligently failed to advise him to register under s3 of the 1986 Act. The claimant had to underwrite his customers' losses because of his failure to register. The SIB began its investigation into the claimant's business less than six years before he brought his action against the defendants, and its obligation compensate arose within the limitation period. However, his claim against the defendants was held to be time-barred, because the claimant had first suffered actionable loss, and therefore his cause of action had accrued, when the first customer entered into the mortgage scheme. He claimed that ". . . actual loss is not the same as a serious risk of loss, and … that until at the earliest the claimant signed the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity (which was within the six year period) there was no more than a serious risk of loss." Held: Kennedy LJ put the argument: "Forster's case there was immediate damage to a discernible asset, the plaintiff's equity of redemption, not merely a risk of damage to her assets as a whole." and rejected those submissions relyining on Milton -v- Walker & Stanger. "… it is necessary to identify the loss claimed, and to measure it against the duty allegedly breached. Here the breach of duty relied upon is an alleged failure to advise the claimant how to operate in such a way as not to be likely to attract adverse criticism for the SIB, in consequence of which negligence vulnerable transactions were made which were all completed before the beginning of the six year period, and before the SIB began to investigate."
	Financial Services Act 1986 3 - Limitation Act 1980
	Link[s] omitted

Corbett (As Administrator of the Estate of Miss N A Tresawna (Deceased)) -v- Bond Pearce (a Firm) Unreported, 25 May 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 805
25 May 2000 ChD Eady J	Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The testatrix had executed her will, but it was left undated pending preparation and execution of a second deed. The will failed, and her executors sought damages from her solicitors for negligence.

Regina -v- Council for Licensed Conveyancers Ex Parte Watson
16 Jun 2000 QBD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	The dismissal of an action for negligence against a licensed conveyancer for failing to disclose to the client the existence of a right of way, did not prevent his professional body disciplining him out of the same facts and awarding compensation. The test of negligence is not the same as the test of whether he had provided an inadequate professional service.
	Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Sch 8

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd -v- McBains Cooper [2000] EWHC Technology 85
27 Jun 2000 TCC	Professional Negligence, Contract
	The claimant sought damages from the defendant firm of surveyors, alleging negligence in their survey of commercial property.
	Link[s] omitted

Law Society -v- KPMG Peat Marwick and Others [2000] 1 WLR 1921; A3/2000/0175
29 Jun 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The respondent accountants had certified accounts for a firm of solicitors whose dishonest defaults later lead to substantial claims on the compensation fund set up by the claimants. Held: The Law Society who collected funds from the profession at large and would have to pay out compensation were clearly owed a duty of care by the respondents.

Erridge -v- Coole & Haddock
6 Jul 2000 ChD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	A solicitor had advised one party to a joint venture transaction. His advice was incorrect. He witnessed the signature of another partner who was not separately represented. Although the solicitor's advice was negligent, and he should have regarded himself as the solicitor for that party as regards parts of the agreement impacting upon him personally, the party would have proceeded anyway, and could show no loss personal to him.

Gregory -v- Shepherds
13 Jul 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	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. Nevertheless the solicitor was negligent in his own act of paying the money across to the seller direct without first enquiring of the foreign lawyer that all proper searches and enquiries had been carried out.

Hanif -v- Middleweeks (a firm) [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 920
19 Jul 2000 CA Mance LJ, Roch LJ	Professional Negligence, Damages	1 Citers
	The claimant sought damages for an opportunity lost by the negligence of the defendant. There were three putative defences to the action that the claimant had lost the chance of bringing. Held. A mathematical approach is not always appropriate in lost opportunity claims. However, the Judge ought not to have disregarded the first two defences (which had high probabilities of failing) and taken only the percentage he assessed for the defence that was most likely to succeed. In calculating a claimant's lost chance of pursuing litigation against a third party, its task is not normally to determine definitively how that litigation would have been decided. Mance LJ said that there might be circumstances where it was overwhelmingly clear that the prospects of success were nil or 100%.

Arthur J S Hall & Co (A Firm) -v- Simons; Barratt -v- Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris -v- Schofield Roberts & Hill (A Firm) [2000] UKHL 38; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] 3 WLR 543; [2000] 2 FLR 545; [2000] Fam Law 806; [2002] 1 AC 615
21 Jul 2000 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: "The standard of care to be applied in negligence actions against an advocate is the same as that applicable to any other skilled professional who has to work in an environment where decisions and exercises of judgment have to be made in often difficult and time constrained circumstances. It requires a plaintiff to show that the error was one which no reasonably competent member of the relevant profession would have made." Recent changes in procedure designed to reduce vexatious litigation, and the doctrine against collateral attack should be dealt with by more specific remedies. Experience in foreign common law jurisdictions did not indicate a need for the immunity. The courts can be trusted to differentiate between errors of judgment and true negligence. The section did not create a statutory bar on claims in negligence. Lord Hope discussed an advocate's duty to the court: "it is necessary to appreciate the extent of that duty and the extent to which the efficiency of our systems of criminal justice depends on it. The advocate’s duty to the court is not just that he must not mislead the court, that he must ensure that the facts are presented fairly and that he must draw the attention of the court to the relevant authorities even if they are against him. It extends to the whole way in which the client’s case is presented, so that time is not wasted and the court is able to focus on the issues as efficiently and economically as possible."
	Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 62
	Link[s] omitted

Somatra Limited -v- Sinclair Roche & Temperley (a Firm) etc [2000] EWCA Civ 229; [2000] 1 WLR 2453
26 Jul 2000 CA	Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	In an action between clients and their solicitors, the solicitors produced at an interlocutory hearing evidence derived from without prejudice discussions. The claimants applied for disclosure of all such documents, but this was rejected on the basis that the evidence would not be admissible at trial. On appeal it was held that the evidence having been introduced already by the defendants, it would not be just if they were not admitted in evidence in full at trial. Alleged negligence in defending a claim.
	Link[s] omitted

Gorham and others -v- British Telecommunications Limited Plc, the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme Standard Life Assurance Company S/S [2000] EWCA Civ 234; [2000] 4 All ER 867; [2000] 1 WLR 2129
27 Jul 2000 CA	Insurance, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where an insurance company gave financial advice to a person to whom they owed a duty of care, and they were aware that that person was intending to provide for his dependants, then the insurance company owed the dependants a duty of care also. The principle established in White v Jones should not be narrowly construed. The advice presumed such an interest in the person receiving the advice.
	Link[s] omitted

Kathleen Magaret Oakes -v- Mr P W Hopcroft [2000] EWCA Civ 237; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 394
27 Jul 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Limitation	1 Citers
	The claimant needed correct medical advice and legal advice before she knew that she had settled her original personal injury claim at too low a figure.
	Limitation Act 1980 14A
	Link[s] omitted

Phelps -v- Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton -v- Clwyd County Council; Gower -v- Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis -v- Hampshire County Council [2000] UKHL 47; [2001] 2 AC 619; [2000] 3 WLR 776; [2000] 4 All ER 504; (2000) 150 NLJ 1198
28 Jul 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Clyde Lord Hutton Lord Millett	Local Government, Education, Vicarious Liability, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff's claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed. Held: The House unanimously dismissed the local authority's appeal in that last case but allowed the plaintiff's appeal in the other three. A local authority can be liable in negligence for its failures to provide appropriate special needs educational support to those it had a duty to educate, and was liable even for the independent acts of its professional agents employed by it for this purpose. The absence of an express statutory provision for damages was not conclusive, professionals must acknowledge that their decisions have consequences and that their duties lie not only toward their employers. Failure to reduce the consequences of conditions such as dyslexia can constitute a personal injury. A head teacher owes a duty of care to exercise the reasonable skills of a headmaster in relation to such a child’s educational needs and a special advisory teacher brought in to advise on the educational needs of a specific pupil, particularly if he knows that his advice will be communicated to the pupil’s parents, "owes a duty to the child to exercise the skill and care of a reasonable advisory teacher." and "the professionalism, dedication and standards of those engaged in the provision of educational services are such that cases of liability for negligence will be exceptional." It was clear in principle that a teacher or educational psychologist could in principle owe a duty of care to a child as well as an employing authority. Valid claims in negligence were not to be excluded because claims which were without foundation or exaggerated might be made. There was no reason to exclude the claims on grounds of public policy alone.
	Education Act 1996
	[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

Howkins & Harrison (A Firm) -v- Tyler and Another [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 1
3 Aug 2000 CA	Damages, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Having paid out £400,000 to a lender as damages for a negligent survey valuation after default in repayments by the defendant, the claimant also sought to recover the payment from the defendant under the Act. The application to stay the claim was refused. The Act could only operate for a claim for the same damage. What was lost by the lender from the default was not the same. Compensation was not the same as recovery of a debt, and the claimant could not claim a subrogation for the lender.
	Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1(1)

Micheal Hyde and Associates Ltd -v- J D Williams and Co Ltd
4 Aug 2000 CA	Professional Negligence
	In a claim alleging professional negligence, once it had been shown that the profession followed different standards, the test against which the action was to be measured was the lower of the two or more standards. Professional negligence means falling below a proper standard of competence. That standard had to allow for standards embraced by proper practice.

Green -v- Hancocks (A Firm) and Another
15 Aug 2000 ChD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	Whether a party had the appropriate standing to commence an action against another was something which should be within the normal competence expected of a solicitor. It would be wrong to transfer the responsibility for an error as to such capacity to counsel who had not expressly requested to advise on the issue.

Guild (Claims) Ltd -v- Eversheds (A Firm) and Others
16 Aug 2000 ChD	Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	A professional adviser's duty not to stand by while a client makes a statement he knows to be false does not extend to the offering of unsought advice as to the wisdom of an act or omission which fell short of such a misleading act. When the advice of a professional was challenged, the standard by which it came to be judged was whether he acted in accordance with practice accepted by a responsible body of skilled practitioners at the time.

Leeds & Holbeck Building Society -v- Ellis (T/A Mark Ellis & Co) [2000] EWCA Civ 416
5 Oct 2000 CA	Professional Negligence
	Conveyancing
	Link[s] omitted

Baldev Singh Mann -v- Messrs Chetty and Patel [2000] EWCA Civ 267
26 Oct 2000 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Baxall Securities Ltd Norbain SDC Ltd -v- Sheard Walshaw Partnership [2001] BLR 36; [2000] EWHC Technology 53
30 Oct 2000 TCC Bowsher QC J	Professional Negligence, Construction	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Smith -v- National Health Service Litigation Authority [2000] EWHC 564 (QB); [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 90
14 Nov 2000 QBD Andrew Smith J	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Calver -v- Westwood Veterinary Group B2/2000/0108
24 Nov 2000 CA	Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	The defendants appealed a finding of professional negligence in their handing of a case in which a mare had miscarried. It was claimed that he had failed to spot a retained placenta. The laminitis she then suffered (found caused by negligence) led to a later miscarriage. Held: The expert evidence had been in favour of the defendants. There was insufficient cause to depart from his findings. Appeal allowed.

Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd -v- Deloitte Haskins and Sells and others [2000] EWHC 209 (Comm)
4 Dec 2000 ComC	Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
	The claimant sued its professional advisers, alleging that they had failed to advise the claimant of the fraudulent activities of its own executive. A substantial action was under way, and the parties sought directions from the court in the transition to the new Civil Procedure Rules.
	Link[s] omitted

Doulat Daryanani -v- Kumar & Co and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 318
12 Dec 2000 CA	Professional Negligence
	Link[s] omitted

Johnson -v- Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65; [2001] 2 WLR 72; [2001] 1 All ER 481; [2002] 2 AC 31
14 Dec 2000 HL Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hutton Lord Millett	Damages, Professional Negligence, Company	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company's owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to a limited company, where the loss claimed was over and above that suffered by the company. Damages for distress should not normally be awarded in an action for breach of contract. The public interests in the claimant bringing one action to recover all his losses remained appropriate, but must not be applied mechanically. A settlement in favour of the company, need not release the defendant from an action by the shareholder. Asking whether a plea raised or an issue challenged amounted to an abuse of process required a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before. As one cannot comprehensively list all possible forms of abuse, so one cannot formulate any hard and fast rule to determine whether, on given facts, abuse is to be found or not . . It is preferable to ask whether in all the circumstances a party's conduct is an abuse than to ask whether the conduct is an abuse and then, if it is, to ask whether the abuse is excused or justified by special circumstances. Lord Hutton said: "where a shareholder is personally owed a duty of care by a defendant and a breach of that duty causes him loss, he is not debarred from recovering damages because the defendant owed a separate and similar duty of care to the company, provided that the loss suffered by the shareholder is separate and distinct from the loss suffered by the company. " Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: "But Henderson v. Henderson abuse of process, as now understood, although separate and distinct from cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel, has much in common with them. The underlying public interest is the same: that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all. I would not accept that it is necessary, before abuse may be found, to identify any additional element such as a collateral attack on a previous decision or some dishonesty, but where those elements are present the later proceedings will be much more obviously abusive, and there will rarely be a finding of abuse unless the later proceeding involves what the court regards as unjust harassment of a party. It is, however, wrong to hold that because a matter could have been raised in early proceedings it should have been, so as to render the raising of it in later proceedings necessarily abusive. That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before."
	Link[s] omitted