Showing 1 - 7 of 7
Case review 2019-06-12
Following on from our August 2018 article 'Phoenix Healthcare – here we go again', judgment was handed down yesterday by the Court of Appeal.
Following on from our article “Adjudication update: smash and grab no more”, the Court of Appeal has now handed down its judgment on S&T’s appeal.
In this briefing we consider some recent UK court decisions addressing issues including: the SAAMCO principles; notifications against multiple policy years; the benefit (or lack thereof) of hindsight in professional negligence claims; and duties (or lack thereof) to point out an opponent’s mistake.
Case review 2018-08-30
Following on from our June article “You made a mistake!”, judgment has now been handed down on Phoenix Healthcare’s appeal.
Case review 2018-08-17
The High Court confirmed that external factors for which professionals had no responsibility would be taken into consideration when assessing damages.
Case review 2018-02-01
The Court of Appeal decision in Thomas v Hugh James Ford Simey is of importance to personal injury lawyers and their professional indemnity insurers as it recognises that lawyers are not necessarily obliged to challenge a client’s decision.
Case review 2017-12-28
This case is a useful reminder of the basic principles governing when a cause of action accrues and limitation starts to run. It is also potentially of relevance to lender’s claims, offering an argument to get round the Nykredit principle that damage only accrues when the amount loaned plus interest exceeds the value of the rights acquired by the lender.
The facts of this case read like a cautionary tale of what not to do when executing a will, or indeed entering into an agreement for a subsequent variation. It is also a classic example of satellite litigation involving a professional negligence action generated by earlier professional negligence.