Gordon v Wheatley & Co (A Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 173 (24 May 2000)

Gordon v Wheatley & Co (A Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 173 (24 May 2000)

The claimant suffered actual loss when each investment was made into the pooled scheme without proper advice, as this exposed him to contingent liabilities under the Financial Services Act 1986. This was before the limitation period, so the claim is statute-barred. Alternatively, liability for the second defendant's fees was incurred before the limitation period, also constituting actual loss.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 173
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (name not specified); First Defendant: First Defendant (firm of solicitors, name not specified); Second Defendant: Second Defendant (firm of solicitors, name not specified)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim against first defendant struck out and dismissed.
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Negligence, Limitation Period in Tort, Accrual of Cause of Action, Economic Loss, Financial Services Act 1986
Professional Negligence Limitation Law Solicitors' Negligence Limitation Period in Tort Accrual of Cause of Action Economic Loss Financial Services Act 1986

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

Parties

Claimant (name not specified)

Claimant

First Defendant (firm of solicitors, name not specified)

First Defendant

Second Defendant (firm of solicitors, name not specified)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does a cause of action in tort for professional negligence accrue for limitation purposes?
  2. 2 Did the claimant suffer actual loss more than six years before issuing proceedings, rendering the claim statute-barred?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant suffered actual loss when each investment was made into the pooled scheme without proper advice, as this exposed him to contingent liabilities under the Financial Services Act 1986. This was before the limitation period, so the claim is statute-barred. Alternatively, liability for the second defendant's fees was incurred before the limitation period, also constituting actual loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim against first defendant struck out and dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of Master Foster restored: claim against first defendant struck out and dismissed.
  • First defendant entitled to costs of hearing before the judge in chambers and costs of this appeal, subject to detailed assessment.