Property Solicitor Negligence - Causation Case
A recent case of AW Group Ltd v Taylor Walton demonstrates the hurdles that you must overcome in order to be successful in a negligence claim.
It has long been established law that there are three main elements that you must prove in order to succeed in a claim for negligence. There must be:
- A duty of care
- A breach of that duty of care
- A loss that is caused by the breach of duty of care
The basic test for establishing causation is the “but-for” test. Put simply, it must be considered that the claimant’s losses would not have occurred “but for” the negligence. It can often be this third hurdle where claimant’s cases fail, as demonstrated in the recent case of AW Group.
In brief, the facts of the case were that the claimant instructed solicitors in relation to the purchase of a property. The solicitors had a duty to investigate the title to the property including checking that necessary planning consents were in place.
The sale was completed, however it later came to light that the property did not have the correct planning consents to allow HGV lorries to park at the rear of the property. The claimant argued that if they had been aware of this they would not have purchased the property. They claimed that they had suffered losses to include the decrease in value of the property.
The solicitors argued that the claimants would have gone ahead with the purchase of the property in any event, even if they had been advised of the issue with the planning consent. In other words, even if there had was a breach of duty, this had not caused the claimants any loss.
Duty of Care
It is well established that a duty of care exists between a solicitor and their client, and the solicitor must exercise reasonable skill and care. Therefore the issues before the court were:
- Whether the solicitors were in breach of duty to the claimant;
- If so, whether the breach of duty had caused the claimant any loss.
The court concluded that the solicitors were in breach of their duty, in that they failed to give proper advice in relation to the planning of the properties site.
However, the court decided that by the time the necessity for the planning position arose, the claimant was already so committed to the purchase of the property that they would have continued with the purchase in any event.
Therefore, in this case, the breach of the solicitors duty of care did not cause the claimant any loss, as the court considered that they would have continued with the purchase of the property anyway.
This case demonstrates the importance of considering all three elements of a claim for property solicitor negligence right at the outset of any potential claim. Here at Redress Law we are experts in this field and are able to provide clear advice to clients from the beginning of every claim.
