Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
The recent case of Russell v Stone (trading as PSP Consultants)
 EWHC 831 (TCC) concerns a professional negligence claim against a firm of quantity surveyors (PSP) in relation to a residential project that was beset with problems. The general thrust of the claim was that PSP’s alleged negligence caused the claimants
to spend significantly more on their property than they ought to have done. In particular, it was alleged that PSP failed properly to manage and/or advise on the tender process.
The court held that PSP had not been negligent and, even if it had, the claimants’ case would have failed on the issue of causation. This blog post focuses on the difficulties the claimants faced in proving causation, a common theme
in claims against construction professionals.
'…establishing causation in construction related professional negligence claims against design professionals such as quantity surveyors and project managers is notoriously difficult precisely because of the difficulty in showing how things
would have turned out differently even if the professional had not acted negligently.'
There were a number of strands to the claimants’ case on causation, but by the close of the trial, the case came down to the contention that if PSP had properly advised on the inadequacies in the contractor’s tender, the claimants
would have taken the opportunity to reconsider or re-evaluate the project. However, as to that, the court commented:
'If the [claimants] would have paused and revisited the project, then there needed to be some articulated and particularised case as to what they would have done and what the outcome would have been on the balance of probabilities. There simply was
nothing other than a generalised assertion.'
Given that the claimants failed to establish that they would have done something different, the court was left with no point of comparison that would be analogous to the 'true value' of the loss in line with the well-known decision in South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd
 AC 191 (which the claimants relied on).
0330 161 1234