McLeod & Ors v Crawford & Ors [2010] ScotCS CSOH_101 (23 July 2010)

McLeod & Ors v Crawford & Ors [2010] ScotCS CSOH_101 (23 July 2010)

The defenders did not owe a duty of care to the pursuers as individuals because the necessary proximity was lacking, there was no lacuna in the law, the potential for conflict of interest and indeterminate liability militated against imposing such a duty, and the case was distinguishable from the 'disappointed beneficiary' line of authority.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_101
Parties
Pursuers: Elizabeth McLeod & Others; Defenders: John Hamilton Crawford & Others (all as partners in the former firm of Campbell Smith W.S. and as individuals)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Judgment on Duty of Care
Outcome
Claim by Mrs McLeod as an individual and by the children dismissed; action to proceed only at the instance of Mrs McLeod as executor-nominate.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Solicitor's Liability, Third Party Claims, Asbestos Related Claims, Damages
Tort Law Professional Negligence Duty of Care Solicitor's Liability Third Party Claims Asbestos Related Claims Damages

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

Parties

Elizabeth McLeod & Others

Pursuers

John Hamilton Crawford & Others (all as partners in the former firm of Campbell Smith W.S. and as individuals)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Judgment on Duty of Care

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a solicitor owe a duty of care to the family of a client in advising on personal injury claims?
  2. 2 Should liability extend to third parties beyond the client in professional negligence cases?

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders did not owe a duty of care to the pursuers as individuals because the necessary proximity was lacking, there was no lacuna in the law, the potential for conflict of interest and indeterminate liability militated against imposing such a duty, and the case was distinguishable from the 'disappointed beneficiary' line of authority.

Court Disposition

Claim by Mrs McLeod as an individual and by the children dismissed; action to proceed only at the instance of Mrs McLeod as executor-nominate.

Orders

  • Sustain the first plea-in-law for the defenders.
  • Dismiss the claim made on behalf of Mrs McLeod as an individual and the children.