header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 April 2016 / Helen Mulcahy
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Testing times

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7696_mulcahy

What test of damages should apply in a case involving concurrent causes of action, asks Helen Mulcahy​

Wellesley Partners (WP), a small but successful firm of head hunters in the investment banking sector, brought a successful negligence claim against Withers arising out of changes to WP’s LLP agreement, which was to allow for the admission of new investors who were to become members of the partnership (see Wellesley Partners LLP v. Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146, [2015] All ER (D) 146 (Nov)). One of the investors, Addax, was to make a capital contribution of US$5,000,000 in return for a 25% interest. An element of the initial terms was that Addax would be entitled to exercise an option to withdraw half its capital contribution, after 42 months.

However, for reasons unknown, the junior solicitor who drafted the changes to the LLP agreement inserted that the option to withdraw was exercisable within the first 41 months. Twelve months following the investment, Addax exercised the option to withdraw half its capital contribution.

At the beginning of 2008,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll