How to Claim for Negligence

It seems as though Brad and Chardonnay have been subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misstatement. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant difference being you cannot claim for economic loss within general negligence but you can in professional (provided specific criteria are met).

To make a successful claim for this form of negligence there are four requirements that must be met; establishing a duty of care, proof of that duty of care being in breach, damages (this can include economic loss) and establishing that the beach has caused the damage. If a single one of those requirements are not met or are absent, the case will fail.

To begin a claim in professional negligence, you must begin with establishing that there is a professional duty of care owed towards the plaintiff. The most significant case in relation to professional negligence is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. This is because for the first time, it established that a third party relying upon a statement made the him/her may be owed a duty of care by the maker of that statement. The outcome from the Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners (1964) established that a duty of care would be owed (in relation to statements) where there is a ‘special relationship’ between the giver and recipient of the advice or statement. Despite this, a definition for a ‘special relationship’ was not fully defined, however it tends to go by meeting these three requirements; a reliance by the claimant of the defendant’s special skill and judgement; knowledge, or reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the claimant was relying on the statement; and that it is reasonable in the ...

... middle of paper ...

...clauses must pass the test for reasonableness. In Smith v Eric Bush [1989] (1990 AC 831), a surveyor sought to exclude liability for negligent misstatement when completing mortgage valuations. The disclaimer excluded liability to any third party relying on their advice. it was decided that there was no contractual agreement between the plaintiff and defendant and it did not prevent any duty of care arising. It was subject to s2(2) of UCTA and was found to be unreasonable. As this case is so similar to that of Brad and Chardonnay, one could only assume that the same verdict would be made towards Briks & Mortimer Chartered Surveyors’ exclusion clause.

To conclude, I would advise Brad and Chardonnay to exercise their right to claim damages from the surveyor as they have a strong case, based upon the relevant cases, evidence and legislation explained within this essay.