The Supreme Court has confirmed that a professional adviser’s liability is limited to those matters on which they were asked to advise, say Elisabeth Mason & David Niven
- Clarification of the SAAMCO principle.
- Distinction between advice & information cases.
- No exceptions to the SAAMCO principle.
In BPE Solicitors and another (Respondents) v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel) (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed and clarified the often misunderstood ‘SAAMCO principle’.
In South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1997] AC 191 (SAAMCO), the House of Lords ruled that a professional adviser will only be liable for damages claimed for negligence falling within the scope of a professional adviser’s duty to his client. In BPE Solicitors, the Supreme Court has considered the SAAMCO principle for the first time. In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the principle and clarified its proper application and effect. The BPE Supreme Court decision is now the leading case on the SAAMCO principle.
The issue
As Lord Sumption commented
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
