MOCK Research Trail Example PDF

Preview

Summary

Bar Practice Course Opinion Writing Mock...

Description

IN THE MATTER OF

MR THEDORE GRAYSON Proposed Claimant and

MARK LITTLE AND ROSETTI & KOHLER Proposed Defendants

RESEARCH TRAIL

1.

Did Mr Mark Little owe a duty of care in tort to Mr Theodore Grayson?

The instructions ask if there is a potential claim against Mr Little and if so, advise on liability and quantum. The letter of 3rd December 2020 (p. 9) alleges Mr Little provided negligent advice and supervisory services and claims damages. No other claim is advanced.

Researched whether an architect owes a duty of care in the tort of negligence.

Looked in:  Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 23rd edn., + 2nd supplement (on Westlaw)  Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, 14th edn., + 2nd supplement (on Westlaw)

Searched “architect” and “duty of care” Found Clerk & Lindsell chapter 9, section 5 (Professional Liability) 

para 9-208: an architect owes a contractual duty to his client to exercise reasonable skill.

Found Charlesworth & Percy Par II, chapter 10, section 3 (Standard of Care):

1



para 10-52: the duty of architects is primarily determined by the contract under which they are engaged. In addition, duties may be owed under statute or in tort.

Found Charlesworth & Percy Part I, chapter 2, section 2 (Duty of Care): 

para 2-100: where a person assumes responsibility to perform professional or quasi-professional services for another who relied on those services, then the relationship was sufficient to give rise to a duty on the part of the person providing the services to exercise skill and care in doing so and reference to Lejonvarn v Burgess [2017] EWCA Civ 254; [2017] P.N.L.R. 25

 Looked at Lejonvarn v Burgess [2017] EWCA Civ 254; [2017] P.N.L.R. 25 referred to in both books and noted similar facts.

A friend and former neighbour of the claimants agreed, without any contract, to provide professional services as an architect on a landscaping project for the claimants’ garden.

She did not have to provide any services, but to the extent that she did so and was relied on by the claimants properly to perform such services she owed a duty to exercise skill and care in their provision. In so deciding the court recognised that an approach looking for a voluntary assumption of responsibility subsumed all parts of the threefold Caparo test. Held that an architect can be liable in the tort of negligence for economic loss.

Noted that the Court of Appeal held that she had assumed a responsibility and that she owed a duty of care to the claimants.

2.

Is the firm, Rosetti & Kohler liable to Mr Theodore Grayson for a wrongful act or omission by Mr Mark Little?

The instructions also ask if there is a potential claim, will Mr Little alone be liable, or will liability also fall on his business partners. In the letter of 16th December 2020 (p. 11) Rossetti & Kohler’s solicitors deny liability on behalf of their clients.

Researched liability of a firm for wrongful acts of a partner 2

Looked in:  Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 23rd edn., + 2nd supplement (on Westlaw)  Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, 14th edn., + 2nd supplement (on Westlaw)

Searched “partners” and “liability” Found Clerk & Lindsell chapter 6, section 3 (Liability of the Employer) 

paras 7-90: the liability of a partnership for a tort committed by one or more partners is dealt with in s 10 of the Partnership Act 1890. Noted that the question is whether the perpetrator’s act was performed while acting in the ordinary course of the firm’s business or whether it was authorised by copartners.



Para 6-28: where the wrong occurred in the course of the employee’s employment, or have been closely connected with the acts the employee was engaged to perform the decision of the House of Lords in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48; [2003] 2 A.C. 366 is relevant.

Found Charlesworth & Percy Part I, chapter 7, section 1 (Partnership Act 1890): 

para 7-90: the liability of a partnership for a tort committed by one or more partners is dealt with in s 10 of the Partnership Act 1890. Noted that the question under that section is whether the perpetrator’s act was performed while acting in the ordinary course of the firm’s business or whether it was authorised by co-partners.

 Looked at Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48; [2003] 2 A.C. 366 referred to in both books and noted the moral innocence of the employer is irrelevant; he should be treated as standing in the employee’s shoes.

 Looked at s.10 of the Partnership Act 1890 referred to in both books and noted: “Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business of the firm, or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is

3

caused to any person not being a partner in the firm, or any penalty is incurred, the firm is liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act.”

Law is correct as of 5 February 2021.

4...