header-logo header-logo

Damages

31 March 2017
Issue: 7740 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

BPE Solicitors and another v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, [2017] All ER (D) 152 (Mar)

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal and held that the appellant, a semi-retired businessman who had invested £200,000 into a development project, could not attribute the whole of his loss in a loan agreement transaction, where the appellant had instructed the respondent solicitors to draft the necessary facility agreement and charge. The circumstances of the case established that the solicitors had not assumed responsibility on behalf of the appellant to lend the money and had only been responsible for one of the many factors which the appellant had taken into consideration when agreeing to loan the money. The appellant’s loss had been as a result of commercial misjudgements on his part and had been no concern of the solicitors.

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll