header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 March 2026 / Robert Hargreaves
Issue: 8152 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence , Liability
printer mail-detail

Case review: a watershed in negligence law

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
243957
As part of an occasional series on the practical impact of recent landmark judgments, Robert Hargreaves reflects on Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton
  • In Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20 the Supreme Court abandoned the rigid SAAMCO ‘advice/information’ categories in favour of a purpose-based test

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20 was a watershed in negligence law. For over 20 years, practitioners had navigated professional liability using the binary framework of South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 (SAAMCO), distinguishing between ‘advice’ cases, where the professional is responsible for all foreseeable consequences of a transaction, and ‘information’ cases, where recovery is limited to the consequences of the information being wrong. The decision in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton swept that distinction away.

The Supreme Court introduced a new principle: the scope of a professional’s duty is defined by the purpose of the advice

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Penningtons Manches Cooper—Robert Dransfield

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Robert Dransfield

London medical negligence practice strengthened by senior partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—seven appointments

DAC Beachcroft—seven appointments

Firm boosts professional risk practice with team hire in Manchester, led by partner Ben Parks

Doyle Clayton—Benedicte Perowne

Doyle Clayton—Benedicte Perowne

Workplace law firm appoints new head of regulatory team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll