Image from Google Jackets

Stone Heritage Development Ltd and others V Davis Blank Furniss [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 765, 24 July 2007. The appellant company (C) appealed against a decision that a loss they claimed was not caused by the negligence of their solicitors (D). A development agreement was made between C and the landowners (H). There was risk that the development would encroach onto adjacent local authority land, of which H was thought to have a possessory title. C instructed D that any problem would therefore be resolved by H's acquisition of this land. The local authority did complain of encroachment. H eventually acquired the land, and matters between C and H were concluded resulting in C's loss. C then made representation against D that they should have included a grant of rights between C and H that the development terms included any land that H might acquire. The judge accepted negligence on the part of D, but did not accept that this had caused C's loss. "Held": The conclusion of D's negligence had not been justified. D were not asked to advise on the commercial viability of the deal C negotiated with H. The limitations of C's instructions to D showed that D had not been in breach of their duty. Appeal dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 139867-1001

[2007] EWCA Civ 765, 24 July 2007. The appellant company (C) appealed against a decision that a loss they claimed was not caused by the negligence of their solicitors (D). A development agreement was made between C and the landowners (H). There was risk that the development would encroach onto adjacent local authority land, of which H was thought to have a possessory title. C instructed D that any problem would therefore be resolved by H's acquisition of this land. The local authority did complain of encroachment. H eventually acquired the land, and matters between C and H were concluded resulting in C's loss. C then made representation against D that they should have included a grant of rights between C and H that the development terms included any land that H might acquire. The judge accepted negligence on the part of D, but did not accept that this had caused C's loss. "Held": The conclusion of D's negligence had not been justified. D were not asked to advise on the commercial viability of the deal C negotiated with H. The limitations of C's instructions to D showed that D had not been in breach of their duty. Appeal dismissed.