- Scope of duty in professional negligence cases—Supreme Court rejects the ‘advice/information’ distinction (Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: In the latest decision on the ‘scope of duty’ principle in professional negligence, the Supreme Court has allowed an appeal against a decision by the Court of Appeal and has held that the appellant, Manchester Building Society (MBS), could recover damages for loss sustained as a result of mark-to-market movement following negligent accountancy advice given by the defendant accountants, Grant Thornton (GT). This decision heralds the end of the ‘advice/information’ distinction which Lord Hoffmann drew in South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd. Written by Andrew Butler QC, barrister at Tanfield Chambers, London.
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