Planning analysis: In Lanchester Properties v Forestry Commission, the High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to the Forestry Commission’s negative screening opinion of an afforestation project in County Durham under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The court held that the Commission had sufficient material to conclude that the proposed 290-hectare Greencroft Woodland project was not likely to have significant environmental effects in relation to landscape or cultural heritage, and that the decision was not irrational.

Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do' (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781, at p 784). It is accepted that the test for breach of duty is objective, in the sense that the individual character and mental and physical features of the particular defendant are usually irrelevant.

Personal Injury analysis: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that some families of British soldiers killed in Iraq can make damages claims under human rights legislation, David Robinson, military claims specialist at Thompsons Solicitors, advises that the legal battle for the families involved is far from over: having won the right to have their cases heard, now they need to prove negligence.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note sets out illustrative decisions in negligence claims, including professional negligence claims, from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024. It is not maintained and is for background information only. While it is critical that each case is analysed on its own merits and its own unique set of factual and legal circumstances, it is of use to understand the operation of the key legal principles in their factual context. This Practice Note therefore includes some of the more illustrative decisions in the field of negligence and professional negligence claims. The decisions listed below are those dating from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024. The general principles applicable in negligence claims cases as to existence and standard of the duty of care, breach, causation and loss, can be found in Practice Notes: • Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim • Negligence—when does a duty of care arise? • Negligence—banks and the duty of care • Negligence—when is the duty of care breached? and in professional negligence

While it is critical that each case is analysed on its own merits and its own unique set of factual and legal circumstances, it is of use to understand the operation of the key legal principles in their factual context. This Practice Note therefore includes some of the more illustrative decisions in the field of negligence and professional negligence claims. The decisions listed below are those dating from 1 January 2025 onwards. For illustrative decisions from 2020–2024 see Practice Note: Negligence claims—illustrative decisions (2020–2024) [Archived]. Note, we do not include every decision but only those from which interesting points of illustration arise. The decisions listed below include full links to the judgment (and, where available, our News Analysis of the judgment). The general principles applicable in negligence claims cases as to existence and standard of the duty of care, breach, causation and loss, can be found in Practice Notes: • Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim • Negligence—when does a duty of care arise? • Negligence—establishing a duty of care—specific scenarios • Negligence—banks and the

While tort claims are not as common in construction projects as breach of contract claims, they do still arise and it is not uncommon for a claimant to advance a claim in tort alongside, or in the alternative to, a claim in contract. The most relevant tort in construction is the tort of negligence—this includes ‘professional negligence’ where the negligent act has been committed by a person or company holding itself out to be a professional. This Practice Note considers some of the key issues concerning negligence in the context of construction projects, including liability for personal injury and damage to other property (including the complex structure theory), liability for pure economic loss (including whether there has been an assumption of responsibility), co-existing duties in contract and tort, liability for independent contractors, contributory negligence and the ability to limit or exclude liability for negligence. For an overview of the various torts, see: Tort and negligence claims—overview. The elements of a claim in negligence Four elements must be established for a claim in negligence to succeed:

This Practice Note deals with the duty of care owed by valuers, and the extent of their liability to buyers, sellers and mortgagees for inaccurate valuations, including the margin of error permitted to valuers, the measure of damages, contributory negligence of claimants and attempts to exclude liability. It does not cover the liability of a valuer acting in an expert determination or arbitration. For details of arbitration and expert determination generally, see: Settlement and settling disputes for property disputes lawyers—overview. Duty of care A valuer estimates or assesses the worth or value of, or fixes a price for, a property. A valuer owes a duty to use reasonable care and skill in valuing property, which is normally an express or implied term of their contract but also arises in the tort of negligence. As a result a valuer can be liable to a buyer, seller or mortgagee client, but may also be liable to third parties such as: • a home buyer, even where the valuer is appointed only by the lender, where the buyer relies on the valuer’s

1 Introduction 1.1 We aim to offer an excellent service to our clients. Mistakes can occasionally happen despite our best efforts. We aim, as far as possible, to have a no-blame culture—we are all capable of making mistakes. 1.2 This policy sets out our procedures for dealing with acts or omissions that could give rise to a negligence claim. 1.3 This policy applies to all individuals working at all levels, including partners, consultants, solicitors, other employees (whether permanent, fixed-term or temporary), contractors, trainees, seconded staff, home-workers, casual staff, agency staff, interns and students, agents, sponsors, volunteers or any other person associated with the firm wherever located (collectively referred to as ‘staff’ in this policy). 2 Responsibility for handling claims against the firm 2.1 [Insert name of person nominated to receive internal claim/circumstance report forms] is responsible for handling: 2.1.1 acts or omissions that could give rise to a negligence claim against us; 2.1.2 actual negligence claims against us (including negligence claims that have been notified to us in some way but not yet formally commenced). 2.2 [Insert name of person nominated to receive internal claim/circumstance report forms] will: 2.2.1 receive

This Practice Note focuses on specific issues arising in respect of the tortious duty of care owed by banks to their customers, namely the so-called ‘Quincecare duty of care’, assumption of responsibility and the volunteering of advice. For guidance in relation to the role of banks in the various financial mis-selling claims, see Practice Note: Standard of care in professional negligence claims—Negligent financial mis-selling claims. For guidance on tortious claims generally, see: Tort and negligence claims—overview, and as to negligence specifically, see Practice Notes: • Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim • Negligence—when does a duty of care arise? • Negligence—establishing a duty of care—specific scenarios • Negligence—when is the duty of care breached? For guidance on professional negligence claims, see: Professional negligence claims—overview. Framing a bank’s duty to its customer Before considering the potential scope for a bank’s tortious duty of care to its customer, it is important to remember that, as in the case of Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc, the relationship between a bank and its customer

Practice Note: Negligence—when does a duty of care arise? considers the first question to ask when faced with a prospective claim in negligence—whether or not a duty of care exists between the claimant and the defendant such that, if the defendant has breached that duty, liability may arise. It identifies the general requirements when seeking to establish the existence of a duty of care. The content below considers the application of those principles and the general requirements for establishing a duty of care in certain specific types of scenario, namely: • the duty of care of the emergency services • when the nature and extent of the duty of care may be restricted for purely economic loss or psychiatric damage • specific corporate and other related scenarios, such as directors and auditors and parent companies For detailed guidance on claims in negligence against banks and the scope of the so-called ‘Quincecare duty of care’ applying to banks, see Practice Note: Negligence—banks and the duty of care. For consideration of what may then

This Practice Note outlines the key elements for establishing a claim in negligence. For specific guidance on negligence in the context of company/parent company liability, banks and in professional negligence cases, see: • Practice Note: Tortious liability—companies • Practice Note: Negligence—banks and the duty of care • Professional negligence claims—overview Negligence—what are the key ingredients to establish a claim in negligence? For liability in negligence to be founded, four key ingredients must be present: • duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant • breach of that duty • damage (which is caused by the breach) • foreseeability of such damage The various elements of each of the tests overlap and their separation can be artificial upon close analysis in certain circumstances. However, considering each of the items in turn is an essential guide to testing whether an actionable claim in negligence has arisen. Negligence—a duty of care is required For negligence to be established, the defendant

This Practice Note considers the first question to ask when faced with a prospective claim in negligence—whether or not a duty of care exists between the claimant and the defendant such that, if the defendant has breached that duty, liability may arise. It considers the requirements for establishing a duty of care to found a negligence claim: issues of foreseeability, proximity, what is ‘fair, just and reasonable’, the duty of care in novel situations (incremental development), omissions and failure to act, assumption of responsibility, the interference principle and delegating a duty of care, as well as those factors preventing a duty of care arising. Practice Note: Negligence—establishing a duty of care—specific scenarios considers the application of those principles and the general requirements for establishing a duty of care in certain specific types of scenario, such as the emergency services, directors and parent companies and the restrictions on a duty of care where the damage is purely economic or psychiatric. For consideration of what