Crooks v Haddow [2000] ScotCS 53 (1 March 2000)

Crooks v Haddow [2000] ScotCS 53 (1 March 2000)

Pursuer failed to state a relevant case for professional negligence; defender was not under duty to appear or advise without proper instructions; pleadings do not establish causation or loss; dismissal of action was justified and does not breach fair hearing rights.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 53
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Thomas Crooks; Defender and Respondent: Christopher Haddow, Q.C.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Advocate's Duty of Care, Damages, Settlement, Fair Hearing, Right of Access to Courts
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Advocate's Duty of Care Damages Settlement Fair Hearing Right of Access to Courts

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Crooks

Pursuer and Appellant

Christopher Haddow, Q.C.

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defender owed duty to appear in court to seek postponement
  2. 2 Whether defender's advice constituted professional negligence
  3. 3 Whether pursuer suffered loss due to defender's actions

Ratio Decidendi

Pursuer failed to state a relevant case for professional negligence; defender was not under duty to appear or advise without proper instructions; pleadings do not establish causation or loss; dismissal of action was justified and does not breach fair hearing rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Minute of amendment refused
  • No damages awarded