Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability, 9th Edition (Mainwork + 2nd Supplement)

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.

Key features

• Examines the nature of professional liability
• Deals with subjects of general application and delves into specific professions
• Discusses the difference between tortious liability and contractual liability
• Considers the duties and obligations of a professional including positive duties and restrictions
• Considers the standard of skill and care including the relevance of the defendant’s qualifications and experience
• Discusses changes in the standard required by professional
• Explains the nature of a fiduciary duty including unauthorised profits and undue influence
• Discusses the origins of the duty of confidentiality including the continuing duty to former clients
• Differentiates between limitation in contract, tort and equity

The new edition addresses all key developments and case law that have evolved since publication of the 4th Supplement to the 8th edition in December 2020. It includes the following significant new cases and developments, including the following:

Insurance. In Lord Bishop of Leeds v Dixon Coles & Gill the Court of Appeal gave further guidance in relation to aggregation. It held that liabilities to different clients arising from thefts from the insured firm’s client account by a partner should not be aggregated as they did not arise out of a series of related acts or omissions.

Scope of duty. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP, an accountants’ case, and Meadows v Khan, a medical case, provide significant guidance and refinement of the scope of duty principle, concentrating on the purpose of the advice objectively construed. This is relevant to claims against most professionals.

Surveyors. In Hart v Large the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a negligent surveyor was liable for the difference in value between the purchase price and the actual value of the property with all the defects, including latent defects, as his advice should have advised that there were risks which could not be assessed.

Lawyers: In Harcus Sinclair llp v Your Lawyers Ltd the Supreme Court has for the first time reviewed the law on solicitors’ undertakings. It has provided significant further guidance on the questions to be asked to determine whether an undertaking was given as a solicitor.

Financial practitioners. Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP has significant ramifications for execution only SIPP providers. The Court of Appeal reviewed earlier High Court authority to the effect that the giving of mere information may constitute advice where the provision of information is itself the product of a selection process involving a value judgment.

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.