# Professional negligence overview

> **Key takeaway:** Duty + professional standard + causation + scope of duty (SAAMCO/MBS/Khan). Concurrent contract/tort (Henderson). Limitation critical. Experts usually required on breach.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/professional-negligence-overview
- **Keywords:** professional negligence, SAAMCO, Bolam, solicitor negligence, scope of duty, Henderson v Merrett, Manchester Building Society, retainer

## What is this about?

Professionals (solicitors, accountants, surveyors, and others) may be liable in contract and/or tort for failing to exercise the skill and care of a reasonably competent member of the profession. Scope of duty, SAAMCO caps, and limitation dominate quantum and liability fights.

## What is the core rule?

The standard is that of the reasonably competent professional in that field (Bolam/Bolitho in clinical analogues; Hunter v Hanley themes in other professions). Concurrent duties in contract and tort are common (Henderson v Merrett). Recoverable loss is limited by the scope of the duty assumed (SAAMCO; Manchester Building Society; Khan v Meadows). Contributory negligence and mitigation apply. Solicitors' retainers and conveyancing/missed-limitation cases are frequent fact patterns.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Retainer/duty in tort — to whom and for what risk?
2. Breach of professional standard (expert evidence usually required)?
3. Causation: would competent advice/act have avoided the loss?
4. Scope of duty / SAAMCO cap on recoverable heads?
5. Limitation: accrual and s.14A knowledge?

## Which authorities matter?

- **Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232** — Professional standard and logical scrutiny of expert opinion (clinical origin; applied by analogy carefully).
- **Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145** — House of Lords on concurrent liability in contract and tort.
- **South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 (SAAMCO); Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton [2021] UKSC 20** — Scope of duty limitation on recoverable losses for negligent advice/information.
- **Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21** — Companion Supreme Court restatement of purpose/scope analysis.

## How does this apply in practice?

Expert evidence is usually essential on breach. Retainers and exclusion clauses need UCTA/CRA scrutiny. Pair with limitation and causation-remoteness notes.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Claiming all consequential losses without SAAMCO analysis
- Missing date of knowledge for latent damage
- Suing the wrong entity in LLP/firm structures
- Under-instructing experts on the precise professional question

## When would a practitioner use this?

Claimant/defendant litigation strategy; pre-action professional negligence protocol work.

## Quick reference

Duty + professional standard + causation + scope of duty (SAAMCO/MBS/Khan). Concurrent contract/tort (Henderson). Limitation critical. Experts usually required on breach.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*