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 Third Supplement to the Ninth edition brings the main work up-to-date, including but not limited the following significant new cases and developments:
- Medical Practitioners: Paul and Another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1: the Supreme Court held that there remained a strong basis for limiting recovery to secondary victims who were present at the scene of an accident and that clinicians do not owe a duty of care to prevent their suffering in such circumstances.
- Evidence and Expert Witnesses: TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48: the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against a decision that a judge had been justified in rejecting the evidence of the claimant’s expert in a case where the defendant had not served countervailing expert evidence or asked for the expert to attend trial for cross-examination.
- Solicitors: Miller v Irwin Mitchell [2024] EWCA Civ 53: the Court of Appeal considered the ambit of the duty of care in tort where solicitors gave advice on a telephone helpline.
- Duties and Obligations: Holmes v Poeton Holdings Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 1377: the Court of Appeal held that the material contribution principle applied to cases of indivisible injury and in such cases the claimant did not have to show that the injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s breach of duty.
- Surveyors: Bratt v Jones [2024] EWHC 631 (Ch): HHJ Cawson KC considered the margin of error in a claim against valuer engaged in expert determination.
- Construction Professionals: Vainker v Marbank Construction Limited [2024] EWHC 667 (TCC): Jefford J considered the factors relevant to the fitness for habitation obligation under the Defective Premises Act, and held that the net contribution clause was prohibited by the Act.
- Insurance Brokers: Infinity Reliance Ltd (t/a My 1st Years) v Heath Crawford Ltd [2023] EWHC 3022 (Comm): Stanley J held a broker to have acted negligently in failing to recommend declaration linked business interruption cover, and emphasised that a broker should identify the main risks the clients faced.
- Information Technology Professionals: Tata Consultancy Services v Disclosure Barring Service [2024] EWHC 1185 (TCC): Mr Justice Constable held an implied term of the contract that the client should perform Systems Integration Activities was not valid, as the sophisticated contract left no room for and contradicted it.
