There were three appeals before the House from orders of the Court of Appeal in a building case and two cases involving family proceedings.
Introduction:
There were three appeals before the House from orders of the Court of Appeal in a building case and two cases involving family proceedings.
Facts of the Case:
Client raised claims in negligence against firms of solicitors. In response the solicitors relied on the immunity of advocates from suit in negligence.
In all three cases judges at first ruled that the claims against the solicitors were unsustainable.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled in all three cases that the claims were wrongly struck out. Thus resulting in the solicitors appeal to the House of Lords.
The case that we are dealing with is Hall v Simmons1. The case involved a claim by a Staffordshire builder (Mr. Simons) that his solicitors had allowed him to become involved in lengthy and expensive litigation rather than advising him to settle at an early stage of the proceedings.
* Duty of Care & Professional liability:
Established Principle:
In Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners (1964) the rule was established that, irrespective off contract, if someone in possession of a special skill undertakes to apply that skill for the assistance of another who relies upon such skill, a duty of care will arise.
Maj's Work:
Facts of the case - Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners:
Hedley Byrne were advertising agents, requested their bank to enquire as to the financial standing of 'Easipower Ltd.'
Heller & Partners were Easipower's bankers replied without responsibility that Easipower was 'considered for its ordinary business engagement.'. Relying upon this reference, Hedley Byrne booked advertising time for Easipower on terms on which they were personally responsible for payments . Easipower went into liquidation and Hedley Byrne lost £17,000 on their contracts. They brought an action against Heller & Partners for damages for negligence.
Held: Such a statement could give rise to an action for damages for financial loss in tort (there being no contractual relationship between the parties concerned). This was because a duty of care would be owed where there was a special relationship between the parties. However on these facts that duty had been expressly excluded by the disclaimer of responsibility.
There were three appeals before the House from orders of the Court of Appeal in a building case and two cases involving family proceedings.
Facts of the Case:
Client raised claims in negligence against firms of solicitors. In response the solicitors relied on the immunity of advocates from suit in negligence.
In all three cases judges at first ruled that the claims against the solicitors were unsustainable.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled in all three cases that the claims were wrongly struck out. Thus resulting in the solicitors appeal to the House of Lords.
The case that we are dealing with is Hall v Simmons1. The case involved a claim by a Staffordshire builder (Mr. Simons) that his solicitors had allowed him to become involved in lengthy and expensive litigation rather than advising him to settle at an early stage of the proceedings.
* Duty of Care & Professional liability:
Established Principle:
In Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners (1964) the rule was established that, irrespective off contract, if someone in possession of a special skill undertakes to apply that skill for the assistance of another who relies upon such skill, a duty of care will arise.
Maj's Work:
Facts of the case - Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners:
Hedley Byrne were advertising agents, requested their bank to enquire as to the financial standing of 'Easipower Ltd.'
Heller & Partners were Easipower's bankers replied without responsibility that Easipower was 'considered for its ordinary business engagement.'. Relying upon this reference, Hedley Byrne booked advertising time for Easipower on terms on which they were personally responsible for payments . Easipower went into liquidation and Hedley Byrne lost £17,000 on their contracts. They brought an action against Heller & Partners for damages for negligence.
Held: Such a statement could give rise to an action for damages for financial loss in tort (there being no contractual relationship between the parties concerned). This was because a duty of care would be owed where there was a special relationship between the parties. However on these facts that duty had been expressly excluded by the disclaimer of responsibility.
