Dispute Resolution—substantive law and limitation annual round-up: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]
Dispute Resolution—substantive law and limitation annual round-up: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Dispute Resolution—substantive law and limitation annual round-up: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]
  • Reviewing 2017
  • Professional negligence—recovering damages and the SAAMCO principle
  • What happened?
  • What are the key implications?
  • Want to know more?
  • Professional negligence—recovering damages and the ‘but for’ test
  • What happened?
  • What are the key implications?
  • Want to know more?
  • More...

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes Supreme Court decisions in BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland and in Tiuta v De Villiers on issues of recovery of loss and assessing damages in professional negligence claims, the Supreme Court decisions in Globalia v Fulton on mitigation and in Lowick Rose v Swynson on issues of unjust enrichment and transferred loss and, from the High Court, an important decision from Coulson J in Russell v Stone on limitation standstill agreements.

Reviewing 2017

Professional negligence—recovering damages and the SAAMCO principle

What happened?

In BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a trustee in bankruptcy, holding that losses which the bankrupt had suffered in a property transaction had not been within the scope of the respondent firm of solicitors’ duty to him. Although the respondent had unintentionally confirmed the bankrupt’s incorrect understanding of the transaction, he could not recover damages because he would still have lost his money even if that assumption had been right.

What are the key implications?

The suggestion is

Popular documents