This ought in principle to have been viewed as a relatively straightforward case of a negligently induced purchase where the defendant was liable to pay damages for the difference between price paid and value plus reasonably foreseeable consequential losses. Instead, five judges spend 400 paragraphs expressing widely different views, and something approaching a sensible outcome was only achieved by a 3.2 majority. 15 months of judicial deliberations has done nothing to clarify the law relating to the measure of damages for professional negligence. Readers who have an interest in this area might profitably focus on the judgment of Justice Kos. Grappling with the whole case will not provide, to borrow Jason Neyers’ phrase, “happy readiing”!

David McLauchlan

On 26 Jun 2025, at 11:52 AM, Timothy Pilkington <timothy.pilkington@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote: