Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 JULY 2017

Unintended Consequences: Be Clear What You Advise On

The problem that the SAAMCO principle was established to address was colourfully illustrated by Lord Hoffman in the SAAMCO case itself.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Introduction



In the recent case of BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously re-affirmed and clarified the principle established by the House of Lords in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10 (the "SAAMCO principle"). This article explains the clarification and the practical consequences it has for those seeking professional advice.

The SAAMCO principle

The problem that the SAAMCO principle was established to address was colourfully illustrated by Lord Hoffman in the SAAMCO case itself. He asked during the course of argument what the liability of the doctor should be in the following hypothetical scenario:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from