In English law, professional negligence occurs when a professional fails to perform their duties to the required standard, causing loss or harm to their client or another party.
Definition and Principles
Professional negligence arises from breaches of the duty of care owed by professionals—such as solicitors, accountants, architects, or doctors—who must perform services with reasonable skill and competence.
Essential Elements
Duty of Care: Professional owes a duty to act competently and carefully.
Breach: Falling below the expected professional standards.
Causation: Breach directly causes loss or harm.
Damage: Financial loss or other harm suffered by the claimant.
Common Examples
Incorrect legal advice causing financial loss.
Architectural errors resulting in structural issues.
Mismanagement of accounts by financial advisors.
Practical Importance
Understanding professional negligence emphasises accountability and competence among professionals, ensuring standards that protect clients and public confidence.
A solicitor was instructed to create a new will benefiting the testator's daughters but negligently delayed until the testator's death. The daughters, who received nothing, sued the solicitor. The House of Lords held the solicitor owed a duty of care to the intended beneficiaries. Facts Mr Barratt, having previously disinherited his daughters (the plaintiffs) after a family dispute, reconciled with them. On 17 July 1986, he instructed his solicitors (the defendants) to draft a new will to include legacies of £9,000 for each daughter. The solicitor handling the matter negligently failed to act on these instructions with due expedition. Numerous
A lender sued a valuer for a negligent overvaluation after the property market fell and the borrower defaulted. The House of Lords held the valuer's liability was limited to the consequences of the inaccurate valuation, not losses from the market fall. Facts This House of Lords judgment concerned three conjoined appeals all dealing with the same essential issue. In each case, a lender financed a property acquisition, taking a mortgage over the property as security. The lender commissioned a valuation from the defendant valuers before advancing the funds. The valuers negligently provided a valuation that was significantly higher than the
A patient suffered fractures during electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) and sued for negligence. The court found the hospital was not liable as the doctors followed a procedure accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion. This case established the 'Bolam test' for professional negligence. Facts The claimant, John Hector Bolam, was a voluntary patient at Friern Hospital, a mental health institution managed by the defendants. He was suffering from depression and agreed to undergo electro-convulsive therapy (ECT). During the procedure, Mr Bolam was not administered any muscle relaxant drugs, nor was he physically restrained, apart from a nurse supporting his shoulders
A psychiatrist, engaged as an expert witness, negligently signed a joint statement damaging her client's personal injury claim. The Supreme Court abolished the long-standing immunity from suit for breach of duty enjoyed by expert witnesses regarding their preparatory work and evidence. Facts The claimant, Mr Jones, was knocked off his bicycle by a car driven by an uninsured driver in 2001. He pursued a claim for damages for physical and psychiatric injury. He was examined by a consultant clinical psychologist, Dr Kaney (the respondent), who was instructed as an expert witness on his behalf. Dr Kaney initially diagnosed him with
A law firm was held vicariously liable for a partner’s dishonest assistance in a client's fraud. The House of Lords ruled the partner's wrongful acts, including drafting sham agreements, were 'closely connected' to his role, falling within the ordinary course of business. Facts Mr Anthony Amhurst, a partner in the law firm Amhurst & Co, dishonestly assisted a client, Mr Hany Salaam, in a fraudulent scheme against Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd (Dubal). Mr Salaam had entered into a genuine consultancy agreement with Dubal, but this was later supplemented by sham agreements drafted by Mr Amhurst. These agreements were designed to
An insurance adjuster, appointed by one insurer to assess a claim for a consortium of co-insurers, was sued for negligence by another insurer in the group. The Privy Council held that the adjuster could owe a duty of care to the other co-insurers. Facts Following damage caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 to a condominium complex in the Cayman Islands, a claim was made under a property insurance policy. The policy was underwritten by a consortium of insurers, including Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd (‘Sagicor’) and Cayman First Insurance Company Ltd (‘Cayman First’). Cayman First, acting as the lead insurer,
In three conjoined appeals, clients sued their legal representatives for negligent conduct of court proceedings. The House of Lords abolished the long-standing immunity from suit for negligence that advocates (both barristers and solicitors) previously enjoyed regarding their work in court. Facts This decision concerned three conjoined appeals where clients sought to sue their legal representatives for negligence. Arthur J. S. Hall & Co. v. Simons A client sued his solicitors for negligently advising him to settle his ancillary relief claim for a sum significantly lower than he might have otherwise obtained, alleging their valuation of his company shares was flawed.
Solicitors negligently failed to advise a client on potential liabilities during a company acquisition, causing the client to lose the chance to renegotiate better terms. The court held that to claim for this loss, the client only needed to prove a 'substantial chance' of a successful renegotiation, not that success would have been guaranteed. Facts The claimants, Allied Maples Group Ltd (AMG), engaged the defendant solicitors, Simmons & Simmons (S&S), to act for them in the acquisition of the Gillow group of companies. The transaction was complex and involved a share sale agreement. S&S failed to warn AMG that the
A homebuyer relied on a negligent survey report commissioned by her mortgage lender, which contained a liability disclaimer. The House of Lords found the surveyor owed a duty of care and the disclaimer was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Facts This appeal, heard concurrently with Harris v. Wyre Forest District Council, concerned a claim in negligence. Mrs Smith, the plaintiff, applied to a building society for a mortgage to purchase a house. As part of the mortgage application, she paid a fee for a valuation of the property to be conducted by a firm of surveyors, Eric
Lloyd's Names sued their managing agents for negligent mismanagement. The agents had a contract with the Names. The House of Lords held that the agents also owed a concurrent duty of care in tort, establishing the principle of concurrent liability. Facts The appellants were underwriting members of Lloyd’s, known as ‘Names’. The respondents were underwriting agents who acted as managers for various syndicates of which the Names were members. The relationship between the Names and their agents was governed by an agency agreement, creating a contractual link. The Names suffered substantial financial losses and brought actions against the agents, alleging
