CA 17 October 1986. Company (C) appealed against decision dismissing its action against solicitors (S) for negligence . S had been instructed to act in negotiating the underlease of rooms to be used as business premises. The underlease was granted at a rent of 3,500 pa. for the first five years, to be increased thereafter by the same percentage as the rent payable under the head lease. Protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 was excluded. When S received a copy of the headlease the rent payable had been cut out and they failed to ascertain what it was, they also failed to warn C of any risks in the rent review clause . When C attempted to sell the underlease but failed, partly because of uncertainty in the rent review clause. A year later when the clause came into effect, the rent under the headlease was increased and C`s rent was increased to 9,022 pa against an open market rental value of 2,600. C refused to pay the increase and paid 16,000 to surrender the underlease. In