New Judgment: BPE Solicitors & Anor v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel)  UKSC 21
22 Wednesday Mar 2017
On appeal from:  EWCA Civ 1513
This appeal considered whether the losses suffered were losses which the defendant solicitiors owed a duty to protect against, and whether the losses suffered were otherwise recoverable from the defendant. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that, on the facts and evidence of the case, the development expenditure of £200,000 would not have added to the value of the property. The Supreme Court also held that, when considering damages, it was necessary to demonstrate that protecting the claimant from loss of the relevant kind was within the scope of the defendant’s duty, and it was for the claimant to establish this. In this case, the defendant was only legally responsible for confirming the claimant’s assumption about one of a number of factors in his assessment of the project. If that assumption had been right, the claimant would still have lost his money and so none of the loss he suffered was within the scope of the defendant’s duty. The Supreme Court held that the loss arose from commercial misjudgements which were no concern of the defendant, and thus the claimant could not recover from them.