Green & Anor v Alexander Johnson (A Firm) & Anor

Green & Anor v Alexander Johnson (A Firm) & Anor

The appropriate measure of damages for the admitted negligence is the diminution in the investment value of the property at the date of negligence, not the vacant possession value. The normal basis for assessment of damages applies, and the alternative approach advanced by the appellants is unsupported by evidence and internally inconsistent. The reduced premium received in the compromise of subsequent proceedings is not attributable to the original negligence, as the claimants would have faced the same procedural risks even with correct advice.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: David Robert Green; Appellant/defendant: Roger Lloyd Jamie Grant; Respondent/claimant: Alexander Johnson (A Firm); Respondent/claimant: Justin Holmes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court upheld.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Causation, Valuation of Property, Duty of Care
Tort Law Professional Negligence Assessment of Damages Causation Valuation of Property Duty of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Robert Green

Appellant/defendant

Roger Lloyd Jamie Grant

Appellant/defendant

Alexander Johnson (A Firm)

Respondent/claimant

Justin Holmes

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate basis for assessing damages for professional negligence by a barrister in property matters?
  2. 2 Should damages be assessed on an investment basis or vacant possession basis?
  3. 3 Is the loss resulting from a compromise of subsequent proceedings attributable to the original negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate measure of damages for the admitted negligence is the diminution in the investment value of the property at the date of negligence, not the vacant possession value. The normal basis for assessment of damages applies, and the alternative approach advanced by the appellants is unsupported by evidence and internally inconsistent. The reduced premium received in the compromise of subsequent proceedings is not attributable to the original negligence, as the claimants would have faced the same procedural risks even with correct advice.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court upheld.

Orders

  • Damages assessed on investment basis as determined by the High Court.
  • No adjustment for reduced premium received in subsequent compromise.