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 tortuous 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 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.
Also available as an eBook on Thomson Reuters ProView™
Thomson Reuters ProView™ is custom built for legal professionals like you.
Using ProView means you can connect to and interact with the content you rely on in new ways, wherever and whenever you like. Find out more about ProView.
Purchase this title as an eBook to start reading today:
If you’re interested in firmwide or multiple user access to this title on ProView then please contact us directly to discuss what options are available.