Professional Negligence.

Yes — surveyors who prepare homebuyer's reports or structural surveys owe a duty of care to the purchaser and can be liable for negligent surveys that fail to identify significant defects. A claim typically arises where a surveyor failed to identify a defect — such as subsidence, damp, structural movement, or Japanese knotweed — that a competent surveyor should have identified and reported. Damages are usually the cost of remedying the defect, or the difference in value between the property as described in the survey and its actual value. Mortgage valuation surveyors also owe a duty of care in some circumstances, though the scope of a valuation is narrower than a full structural survey. The key question is always whether a reasonably competent surveyor in the relevant category should have identified and reported the defect.

Yes — architects, engineers, project managers, and other construction professionals owe duties of care to their clients and can be liable for negligence causing financial loss. Common claims include: negligent design leading to structural problems or building failures; failure to comply with building regulations or planning requirements; negligent supervision of a construction project; errors in specification or contract administration; and certification of work that does not meet the required standard. Construction professional negligence claims often arise alongside or from defects in a building — the question of whether the professional is responsible rather than the contractor is frequently central. Expert evidence from a specialist in the relevant discipline is almost always required. Claims of this type can be complex and high-value.

Yes — accountants and financial advisers owe their clients a duty of care and can be held liable for negligent advice that causes financial loss. Common claims against accountants include: negligent audit or financial reporting; errors in tax advice that result in an avoidable tax liability or penalty; negligent preparation of accounts that misrepresent a business's financial position; and failure to advise on tax planning opportunities. Claims against financial advisers commonly arise from unsuitable investment recommendations, failure to explain risk, or advice that does not take account of the client's circumstances. Financial advisers regulated by the FCA can also be the subject of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which provides a lower-cost alternative to litigation for smaller claims.

Yes — solicitors owe their clients a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, and claims against solicitors for negligent advice or conduct are among the most common professional negligence cases. Common examples include: missing a limitation deadline, causing a claim to be time-barred; failing to advise on the risks of a transaction; negligent drafting of a will, contract, or other document; errors in conveyancing that cause financial loss; and failure to follow a client's instructions. All solicitors must be insured, and claims are typically met by their professional indemnity insurers. The Solicitors Regulation Authority also has powers to investigate solicitor conduct, though a regulatory complaint is separate from a civil negligence claim and does not result in compensation.

Almost always yes — an expert witness in the relevant profession is required to establish what the standard of care was and whether the defendant professional fell below it. The court will not assess the standard of care without expert assistance — it is not something judges decide based on their own knowledge. In most professional negligence cases, both parties instruct their own experts, who exchange reports and — if the case proceeds to trial — give evidence. In some cases, a single joint expert is appointed. The quality and credibility of expert evidence is often the decisive factor in these cases. Instructing the right expert — one with genuine expertise in the relevant specialism and experience of giving evidence — is one of the most important steps in any professional negligence claim.

The limitation period for professional negligence claims is six years from the date of the breach of duty, or three years from the date of knowledge — whichever is later — under the Limitation Act 1980. The date of knowledge is when you first knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that you had suffered a significant injury or loss attributable to the professional's act or omission. In some cases — particularly where the negligence was concealed — a longer period may apply. Identifying the date from which time runs can be complex in professional negligence cases: loss may not be apparent until years after the negligent advice was given. Taking legal advice as soon as you suspect negligence is strongly recommended — do not assume there is plenty of time.

Professional negligence claims are rarely quick. The pre-action protocol alone — with its three-month response period for the professional — takes several months before proceedings are even issued. Once proceedings are issued, professional negligence cases are almost always allocated to the multi-track, involving detailed disclosure, expert evidence, and in many cases a multi-day trial. From issuing proceedings to trial, a contested professional negligence case typically takes two to three years — sometimes longer for complex matters involving multiple parties or large sums. Most cases settle before trial, often after exchange of expert evidence makes each side's position clearer. The cost and uncertainty of litigation drives settlement in the majority of cases.

The measure of damages in a professional negligence claim is the loss caused by the negligence — you are entitled to be put in the position you would have been in had the professional not been negligent. This can include: the difference in value between what you received and what you should have received; wasted expenditure incurred in reliance on negligent advice; loss of a transaction that should have been completed; and consequential losses flowing from the negligent act. In some cases — particularly where the professional's negligence has deprived the claimant of a chance of a better outcome — damages may be assessed on a loss of chance basis. The amount recoverable depends on the specific facts and the counterfactual — what would have happened with competent advice.

To succeed in a professional negligence claim, you must establish three things. First, duty of care — that the professional owed you a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, which usually follows from the professional relationship. Second, breach — that the professional fell below the standard expected of a competent practitioner in their field. Third, causation and loss — that the breach caused you a quantifiable financial loss. Causation is often the most difficult element: you must show that but for the professional's negligence, you would have been in a better position. Establishing what would have happened if the professional had acted correctly — the counterfactual — frequently requires expert evidence. Without all three elements, a claim will fail even if the professional's conduct was clearly substandard.

Professional negligence occurs when a person or firm providing professional services fails to meet the standard of care expected of a competent professional in their field, causing loss to their client. Claims can be brought against a wide range of professionals including solicitors, barristers, accountants, financial advisers, surveyors, architects, engineers, doctors, dentists, and other regulated or skilled practitioners. The professional must have owed the claimant a duty of care — which usually arises from the professional relationship — and must have fallen below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. Professional negligence claims are among the most technically demanding in civil litigation, requiring expert evidence on the applicable standard of care.

Where a professional provides services under a contract, a claim can be brought in both negligence (tort) and breach of contract. The practical differences are: limitation — a contract claim runs from the date of breach, while a negligence claim in tort runs from the date damage is suffered (which may be later); the measure of damages may differ — contract damages aim to put the claimant in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed, while tort damages aim to put them in the position they would have been in if the negligence had not occurred; and the duty of care in tort can in some circumstances extend to third parties who were not party to the contract. In most professional services cases, both claims are pleaded together.

The Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol sets out the steps parties should follow before issuing court proceedings. It requires the claimant to send a preliminary notice to the professional as soon as they decide a claim may be made — this gives early warning and allows the professional to notify their insurer. The claimant must then send a detailed letter of claim setting out the allegations, the evidence relied on, the loss suffered, and the remedy sought. The professional has three months to investigate and respond. This is longer than in most other pre-action protocols and reflects the complexity of professional negligence cases. Compliance with the protocol is not optional — failure to follow it can result in adverse costs orders. The protocol process also frequently leads to settlement without the need for court proceedings.