Professional Negligence Cases http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/656/Default.aspx en-GB registration@casecheck.co.uk Thu, 24 May 2012 12:42:49 GMT Thu, 24 May 2012 12:42:49 GMT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0 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 capacity on behalf of the estate. The Supreme Court considered whether on the interpretation and application of s. 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and the rules of court that enacted it the beneficiary should be permitted to amend the proceedings to bring a derivative action on behalf of the estate. As the addition of the administrator of the estate was not necessary for the determination of the original litigation the beneficiary needed to show that either the administrator did not need to be joined to the proceeding s at all or that he could be joined subsequently. There were no special circumstances that would entitled the beneficiary to carry on a claim on behalf of the estate and while there was some dissent as to whether the requirement to join an administrator was absolute on the facts of the case there was no basis to justify a departure of the rule. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/16302/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/16302/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=16302 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:34:27 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=16302 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. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14292/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14292/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=14292 Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=14292 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 traditional basis by assessing the prospects of success and assessing damages on a broad percentage basis, but rather to take an “all or nothing” approach in light of the decision in Greg v Scott. The Board refused to permit such an argument to be run. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13811/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13811/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13811 Wed, 02 May 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13811 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 statutory cause of action it was founded upon a tort within the jurisdiction. Where the potential liability of the law firm extended to preventing the fund from making improper investments then it could be liable for the “same damage” as the administrators. Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was permitted on the basis that it was arguable that the writ was founded on a tort committed within the jurisdiction. The absence of that ground in the application notice was no bar to relying on it when the Court at first instance had heard full argument on the point. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13737/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13737/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13737 Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13737 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. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13661/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13661/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=13661 Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13661 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 invest in a company the relevant act for which knowledge was required was the act of recommending investment in the first place rather than knowing that the recommendation had been made with out having carried out proper investigations. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12786/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12786/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=12786 Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12786 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. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11896/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11896/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11896 Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11896