header-logo header-logo

24 February 2011 / Nick Bird , Andrew Williamson
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Limiting liabilities

Nick Bird & Andrew Williamson welcome clarification of the duty professionals owe their clients

The decision in Haugesund Kommune and another v Depfa ACS Bank [2011] EWCA Civ 33, [2011] All ER (D) 226 (Jan) will come as a relief to law firms that advised local authorities or banks entering into complex financial deals before the economic downturn. It is also good news for solicitors generally, as it shows that the Court of Appeal is prepared to apply strictly the principles laid down in South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague & Ors [1997] AC 191, [1996] 3 All ER 365 (SAAMCo) in order to limit a solicitor’s liability for losses that fall outside the scope of their duty.

Background

Depfa entered into swap agreements with two Norwegian local authorities, Haugesund and Narvik (the Kommunes), in 2004 and 2005. It advanced a capital sum to the Kommunes which in turn agreed to make fixed quarterly payments for the duration of the swaps together with a “bullet” repayment of the outstanding interest and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll