Share it

On appeal from: [2013] 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.

For judgment, please download: [2017] UKSC 21
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (14 Dec 2016 morning session) (14 Dec 2016 afternoon session) (15 Dec 2016 morning session) (15 Dec 2016 afternoon session)