Limitation, damage and risk

Limitation is frequently a crucial issue in professional negligence cases. It can be complex. Claims often involve concurrent liability in contract and tort, the 6-year primary limitation periods for which can have different starting points. In contract, time runs from the date of breach, but in tort time does not start to run until the date the claimant suffers damage. Identifying that date can cause real difficulty. Read on

Troubles in the 'but for' world

What information or advice does the law presume would have been received by the Claimant if the Defendant had not provided the information or advice negligently? As Andrew Smith J reminded us in the recent case of Levicom v Linklaters [2009] EWHC 812, this issue, which arises both as a matter of quantification and causation, remains substantively undecided. Read on

Why didn't my solicitor tell me I was a foolish businessman?

Businessmen and businesswomen are dependent upon the advice of their lawyers. Indeed, it is not surprising that businesses expect great things from lawyers given the important role lawyers play during transactions. Read on

Ian Mill QC acted for the second defendant, a senior tax barrister, in a claim by a large number of high net worth individuals (including Guy Hands) in relation to advice given in the context of a film related tax scheme. This was the largest claim ever faced by a member of the Bar. The case settled shortly prior to judgment.

Barbara Dohmann QC and Robert Weekes are acting for a hedge fund, Y2K Finance Inc, defending claims brought in the British Virgin Islands by one of the Fund's shareholders. The litigation concerns the management of the Fund during the credit crunch. In applying to appoint a liquidator over the Fund, the shareholder had raised various allegations including breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence. In September, the Fund successfully struck out all those allegations as disclosing no reasonable grounds for them to be brought.

Andrew Hunter and Andrew George are instructed on behalf of separate solicitors in relation to a multi-million dollar claim arising from the implementation and operation of what were intended to be tax efficient investment schemes involving technology companies. An application by Andrew Hunter's client has already established an important precedent relating to the service of claim documents on solicitors who either do not have or have not communicated in writing the fact that they have authority to accept service.

Mark Vinall is acting for the claimant in a claim against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for failing to effect valid service of English proceedings through diplomatic channels in accordance with the law of the relevant foreign country.