- In Brief: UKSC considers SAAMCO (BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- Recovering damages for professional negligence—the crux of the issue in this case
- Understanding SAAMCO
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: In dismissing the claimant’s appeal against the Court of Appeal decision reducing his damages against his solicitors to nil, the Supreme Court considered the key question of what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose from risks which it was no part of the adviser’s duty to protect his client against? This consideration (unanimously approved) involved Lord Sumption engaging in an analysis of the decision in SAAMCO and as considered in subsequent decisions.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial