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.
Answer
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
Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
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.
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
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.
Answer
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
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
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.