000			01676cam a2200265 4500
001			WB3821-17
008			020612n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u118392
245			_aSolicitor's negligence
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002] 23 EG 119 (CS) (8/6/02)
520			_a"Fairbrother and another v Gabb and Co" CA, 23 May 2002. Appellants' (F) landlord was not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy on the termination of their existing lease. Respondent (G), a firm of solicitors failed to give F the correct advice as to the application date for the new tenancy. Lease negotiations broke down in particular over F's request for a break clause and F sought new premises. F brought negligence proceedings against G which G admitted. Dismissed: the dominant causation of the failure to agree the new lease was F's intransigence G's negligence was not considered.. On appeal F contended that causation had been established by the 'but for' test and intransigence was not provable. "Held" F's appeal allowed. 'But for' test necessary but not sufficient to prove causation and no case for intransigence. Negligence to be treated as an effective cause of loss would depend upon the circumstances of the case.
590			_aWB
650			_aBREAK CLAUSES
650			_aBUT FOR TEST
650			_aPROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
650			_aCAUSATION
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
650			_aSECTION 25 NOTICES
650			_aGALOO V BRIGHT GRAHAME MURRAY
650			_aFAIRBROTHER AND ANOTHER V GABB AND CO
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S25
690			_aPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE-NEGLIGENCE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c70473 _d70473