Andrews v Waddingham & Anor

Andrews v Waddingham & Anor

The claimant’s loss was not causally connected to the defendants’ negligent advice regarding the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, as the loss did not arise from insurer insolvency or the absence of statutory protection, but from features of the with-profits annuity itself. The only breach of duty found was in relation to advice about the 1975 Act, and the loss suffered was not within the scope of that duty. Therefore, the defendants are not liable for the loss.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Christopher Andrews; Defendant/appellant: Barnett Waddingham LLP; Defendant/appellant: Raj Waddingham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Causation, Scope of Duty, Damages, Limitation of Actions
Professional Negligence Tort Law Causation Scope of Duty Damages Limitation of Actions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Andrews

Claimant/respondent

Barnett Waddingham LLP

Defendant/appellant

Raj Waddingham

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss suffered by the claimant was causally connected to the defendants’ admitted negligence in advice regarding the Policyholders Protection Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the claim was statute-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant’s loss was not causally connected to the defendants’ negligent advice regarding the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, as the loss did not arise from insurer insolvency or the absence of statutory protection, but from features of the with-profits annuity itself. The only breach of duty found was in relation to advice about the 1975 Act, and the loss suffered was not within the scope of that duty. Therefore, the defendants are not liable for the loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the defendants.