Spire Property Development LLP & Anor. v Withers LLP

Spire Property Development LLP & Anor. v Withers LLP

On an objective reading of the relevant email exchanges in context, Withers LLP did not assume legal responsibility to advise the Developers on their rights and remedies against UKPN if UKPN lacked documentation supporting its right to lay cables. The scope of the duty assumed was limited to answering specific questions about the existence and discovery of the cables at the time of purchase, not to providing advice on remedies or future actions against UKPN.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Spire Property Development LLP; Claimant/respondent: Hortensia Property Development LLP; Defendant/appellant: Withers LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (professional Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment on the 2014 claim set aside.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Scope of Retainer, Remedies for Negligence, Concurrent Duties in Contract and Tort
Professional Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Scope of Retainer Remedies for Negligence Concurrent Duties in Contract and Tort

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spire Property Development LLP

Claimant/respondent

Hortensia Property Development LLP

Claimant/respondent

Withers LLP

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (professional Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Withers LLP owed a tortious duty of care to advise the Developers on their rights and remedies against UKPN in 2014
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the duty assumed by Withers LLP extended to advising on remedies if UKPN had no legal right to lay/maintain the cables
  3. 3 Whether the Developers reasonably relied on Withers LLP's advice or lack thereof as to their rights against UKPN

Ratio Decidendi

On an objective reading of the relevant email exchanges in context, Withers LLP did not assume legal responsibility to advise the Developers on their rights and remedies against UKPN if UKPN lacked documentation supporting its right to lay cables. The scope of the duty assumed was limited to answering specific questions about the existence and discovery of the cables at the time of purchase, not to providing advice on remedies or future actions against UKPN.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment on the 2014 claim set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • Withers LLP is not liable in negligence for failing to advise the Developers on remedies against UKPN in 2014.