Stoll and Others v Wacks Caller (A Firm) [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWHC 2299 (Ch), 21 September 2009. The case relates to the negligence of a solicitor. The appellants (S) bought a property for development. The neighbours sought judicial review proceedings of the planning permission. As a result, the planning permission was quashed. The development did not proceed. S eventually sold the house and lost a considerable amount of money. They sued their solicitor in court, arguing that he should have introduced "a call-in" clause in the sale contract. The solicitor contested that they would still have gone ahead with the purchase. "Held:" claim failed. The solicitor showed negligence. However, because the market was buoyant at the time of the transaction, S would have still continued with the purchase.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 148865-2001 |
[2009] EWHC 2299 (Ch), 21 September 2009. The case relates to the negligence of a solicitor. The appellants (S) bought a property for development. The neighbours sought judicial review proceedings of the planning permission. As a result, the planning permission was quashed. The development did not proceed. S eventually sold the house and lost a considerable amount of money. They sued their solicitor in court, arguing that he should have introduced "a call-in" clause in the sale contract. The solicitor contested that they would still have gone ahead with the purchase. "Held:" claim failed. The solicitor showed negligence. However, because the market was buoyant at the time of the transaction, S would have still continued with the purchase.