Consistently inconsistent? Revisiting the scope of duty of care in negligence claims - Solicitors Journal

In the Supreme Court's decision in the appeal of the case of Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton [2021] UKSC 20, the majority of the Court stated it intended to provide general guidance about the correct approach to determining the scope of duty and extent of liability for all professional advisers.

The decision refocused claims based on professional advice towards: the purpose
of the advice or information given by the professional; and the risk that such advice was intended to protect against.

Russell-Cooke partner Elliot Elsey comments in Solicitors Journal that there is a real likelihood that the MBS decision will result in a significant increase in negligence claims against a wide range of professionals.

Consistently inconsistent? Revisiting the scope of duty of care in negligence claims is free to read on the Solicitors Journal website or via a free pdf.

Elliot is a partner in the commercial litigation team. He advises on a broad range of disputes involving individuals, charities, and businesses across a large number of sectors, including digital marketing, retail, property development and other legal professionals.