Jackson & Powell is the definitive text on Professional Liability. It provides comprehensive coverage of the law of professional liability. It is an essential reference point for every practitioner as it aids them in establishing whether a duty of care exists and whether it has been breached, providing quick access with confidence as to whether a cause of action exists while explaining the remedies available.
The Second Supplement to the Ninth Edition brings the main work up to date, including the following significant new cases and developments:
- URS Corp Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 772: the Court of Appeal considered the date of the accrual of causes of action against construction professionals. It also held that contribution claims do not require that a claim has been intimated against the claimant, and the six-stage test in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton is not necessary in established categories of cases;
- Ashraf v Lester Dominic Solicitors Ltd [2022] EWHC 621 (Ch); [2022] P.N.L.R. 18: the Court of Appeal considered and applied in a conveyancing context the test for duties owed by solicitors to third parties;
- McLean v Thornhill [2023] EWCA Civ 466; [2023] P.N.L.R. 24: the Court of Appeal held that a tax barrister advising the promoter of film finance tax avoidance schemes owed no duty of care to investors;
- Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2023] UKSC 25; [2023] 3 W.L.R. 284: the Supreme Court held that "Quincecare duty" does not apply in cases of authorised push payment fraud, where a customer – as opposed to their agent – instructs and authorises a bank to make a payment;
- Geo-Minerals GT Limited & Anor v Downing & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 648: the Court of Appeal held that the professional duties owed by trade mark attorneys to act only on properly authorised client instructions are functionally identical to those of solicitors;
- Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Co v John Eshkenazi Ltd [2022] EWHC 3023 (Comm): Jacobs J reviewed the relevant principles in relation to whether reasonable care and skill had been exercised in relation to attribution in the context of a forged antique.