Professional Negligence Update: Key decisions in 2024 and 2025

Professional negligence occurs when a professional fails to meet the standard of care expected in their field, resulting in financial loss or harm to their client. Unlike ordinary negligence, which applies to general breaches of duty, professional negligence specifically relates to individuals or entities that provide specialist services, such as lawyers, accountants, architects, or medical practitioners.

To establish a claim for professional negligence, the claimant must demonstrate that:

• The professional owed them a duty of care
• The professional breached that duty by failing to meet the required standard
• The breach caused the claimant to suffer financial loss or other harm

Summary of key decisions from 2024 and 2025 that highlight key issues in negligence and professional negligence claims.

Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre [2025] EWHC

This case examined whether legal advisers were negligent when advising a client regarding the forfeiture of her leasehold property due to service charge arrears. The advisers, lacking specialist knowledge, consulted a barrister who recommended selling the property to settle the debt. The client later claimed she should have been advised to contest the forfeiture.

The court ruled in favour of the legal advisers, confirming that seeking specialist advice was appropriate in this context. The judgment reinforced that professionals in legal aid settings cannot be expected to have the same breadth of expertise as those in large commercial firms. The case also touched on causation, as undisclosed rent demands might have affected the client’s legal options, but their non-disclosure was not the advisers’ fault.

 Norman Hay plc v Marsh Ltd [2025] EWCA

This appeal concerned a negligence claim against an insurance broker who allegedly failed to secure coverage for an employer, resulting in financial losses after a workplace injury claim. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to let the case proceed to trial, rejecting the broker’s attempt to strike out the claim.

A key issue was whether the insurer would have honoured a policy had it been in place. While this argument was relevant, the court determined it was not sufficient grounds for dismissal at this stage. The case emphasised the role of causation and the balance of probabilities in proving loss in professional negligence claims.

Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Patel [2025] EWCA

This case involved claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against a solicitor and a company director in a property development dispute. The Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling, affirming liability for damages but adjusting the calculation of interest.

A central issue was the loss of chance principle, which allows damages to be adjusted based on uncertainties in a claimant’s financial loss. The court ruled that any benefits gained from the negligence should be deducted before applying a percentage reduction for uncertainty, clarifying how financial advantages factor into compensation calculations.

Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP [2024] EWCA

The claimant sought legal advice from a helpline following an injury abroad. She later sued the firm for failing to advise her to notify the travel operator of the accident. The Court of Appeal upheld the solicitors’ argument that while they owed a duty of care even in free consultations, this did not extend to comprehensive guidance beyond the limited scope of the initial advice. The ruling clarified that a client’s lack of sophistication does not automatically expand a solicitor’s duty in a pre-retainer setting.

Niprose Investments Ltd v Vincents Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC

Niprose concerned investors suing their solicitors for allegedly failing to warn them about the risks of a failed property scheme. The firm argued that advising on investment risks was outside their retainer. However, the court refused to strike out the claim, holding that where a retainer exists, the solicitor’s duty may expand depending on the client’s sophistication. This decision highlighted that, post-retainer, solicitors may be expected to take a broader view of their duties when dealing with less experienced clients.