A claim by a beneficiary under a will for negligence against solicitors who were instructed in the administration of the estate and had allegedly allowed his brother, who was also a beneficiary and then the administrator of the estate to acquire and dispose of land which should have been part of the residuary estate was initially brought in the beneficiary’s personal capacity. After the initial limitation period the beneficiary sought to amend the proceedings to claim in a representative capacit ...
|
Professional Conduct: Where a vet with an otherwise unblemished record had backdated the entries of two vaccinations by 14 days or less to save the animals having to recommence a vaccination programme the punishment of removal from the register was disproportionate in the absence of personal gain and taking in to account the shame and disgrace already suffered. A suspension for a period of six months was appropriate.
|
The employee of a construction firm was injured in an accident on 2 August 1994. A firm of Barristers and Solicitors failed to issue a writ and his action became time barred. Proceedings against the firm and its owner were not issued until 21 July 2003. Consequently the negligence complained of only related to the failure to issue proceedings between 21 July 1997 and 2 August 1997. For the first time before the Privy Council the Claimant sought to argue that damages should not be assessed on the ...
|
Jurisdiction. The Administrator to a mutual fund that had collapsed brought contribution proceedings against the fund’s legal advisers. Where lawyers do not provide advice in a jurisdiction but know that their advice is likely to be communicated to and relied on by a client in a foreign jurisdiction it is at least arguable that to the extent that advice is negligent that the tort is committed within that foreign jurisdiction. Whilst a claim for contribution under the Bahamian Act was a statuto ...
|
In an action to recover unpaid fees from its former client in professional negligence proceedings the Claimant solicitors were entitled to summary judgment. That the Master had originally refused the application did not preclude the judge on appeal from conducting a review of the application which could properly extend to reference to all the material that had been before the master.
|
Limitation. Under the Limitation Act 1980 s. 14 A (8) (a), the information required to determine whether the damage was “attributable” was knowledge of the facts giving rise to the “essence” of the pleaded case. Whilst s. 14 A (9) expressly excluded the relevance of knowledge negligence, inevitably language of “fault” might well be used to described the knowledge required under s. 14 A (8) (a). This could be done without subverting the purpose of s. 14 A (9). In respect of negligent advice to i ...
|
Duty of Care: The subject of an investigation into suspected child abuse could not recover damages against the investigating health authority of that investigation was carried out in good faith but carelessly. The duty of care was different to that owed to the children by the health authority.
|
| 1 |