Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons; Barratt v Ansell and others (trading as Woolf Seddon (a firm)); Harris v Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) and another [2002] 1 AC 615
Answer
Facts: The three separate cases involved claims for negligence by clients against their former solicitors. The claims were originally struck out on the basis that advocates were immune from claims of negligence. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the claims should not have been struck out, and the solicitors appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords was unanimous in the decision to remove immunity from suit regarding negligent civil cases, but there were strong dissenting arguments on the decision to remove immunity from suit regarding negligent conduct of criminal cases, namely from Lords Hope, Hutton and Hobhouse.

Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons; Barratt v Ansell and others (trading as Woolf Seddon (a firm)); Harris v Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) and another [2002] 1 AC 615
Answer
?

Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons; Barratt v Ansell and others (trading as Woolf Seddon (a firm)); Harris v Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) and another [2002] 1 AC 615
Answer
Facts: The three separate cases involved claims for negligence by clients against their former solicitors. The claims were originally struck out on the basis that advocates were immune from claims of negligence. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the claims should not have been struck out, and the solicitors appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords was unanimous in the decision to remove immunity from suit regarding negligent civil cases, but there were strong dissenting arguments on the decision to remove immunity from suit regarding negligent conduct of criminal cases, namely from Lords Hope, Hutton and Hobhouse.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons; Barratt v Ansell and others (trading as Woolf Seddon (a firm)); Harris v Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) and another [2002] 1 AC 615 Facts: The three separate cases involved claims for negligence by clients against their former solicitors. The claims were originally struck out on the basis that advocates were immune f

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.