UK: Unintended Consequences: Be Clear What You Advise On


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:

"A mountaineer about to undertake a difficult climb is concerned about the fitness of his knee. He goes to a doctor who negligently makes a superficial examination and pronounces the knee fit. The climber goes on the expedition, which he would not have undertaken if the doctor had told him the true state of his knee. He suffers an injury which is an entirely foreseeable consequence of mountaineering but has nothing to do with his knee."

In legal terms, the issue is what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose from risks which it was no part of the adviser's duty to protect his client against.

In SAAMCO the House of Lords held that in order to answer this question one must first determine the scope of the advisor's duty. Lord Hoffmann drew a distinction between two types of cases. In 'information' cases a professional provides only part of the material to be relied on by the client in making his own decision on whether to proceed. In these circumstances the adviser is not held responsible for all the consequences of his advice, but only the consequence of the information being wrong.

By contrast, in 'advice' cases it is for the professional to identify and consider all relevant matters that need to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to proceed. The adviser is responsible for guiding the whole decision making process, and becomes responsible for the decision itself. Accordingly, the professional will be liable for all the foreseeable consequences of a transaction entered into upon negligent advice, such as a rise or fall in the relevant market.

Lord Hoffman explained that his mountaineer hypothetical was an example of an 'information' case. The doctor was not advising the patient on whether to undertake the climb, but was instead providing a discrete piece of information to the mountaineer to factor into his own decision making process. The mountaineer was ultimately responsible for the consequences of his decision to go mountaineering.

Subsequent cases have struggled with the application of Lord Hoffman's distinction between information and advice cases, leading to unprincipled judgments and inconsistent decisions. The Supreme Court took the opportunity in BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland to clarify the position.


The defendant solicitors ("BPE") had acted for Mr Gabriel when he made a loan to his friend Mr Little. Mr Gabriel was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt and his trustee in bankruptcy (Mr Hughes-Holland) took his place in the litigation.

The loan was made in connection with the development of a building owned by one of Mr Little's companies (High Tech). Mr Gabriel understood that the proceeds of the loan would be used to pay the costs of the development. In fact, Mr Little intended to, and did, utilise the main part of the proceeds to enable one of his companies (Whiteshore) to purchase the property from High Tech, enabling the latter to discharge an existing secured loan. The balance was used to discharge an existing VAT liability of High Tech. The development did not proceed. In due course the building was sold, but Mr Gabriel recovered nothing on the sale (because the proceeds did not cover the costs) and lost his entire advance less only a modest payment made by Mr Little.

The loan documentation drafted by BPE (a facility letter and a charge) was based on a draft prepared for an earlier transaction and stated that the loan would be "made available as a contribution to the costs of the development of the property" and that the purpose of the loan was to "assist with the costs of the development of the property." This reflected Mr Gabriel's understanding but not Mr Little's intention. The trial judge found that Mr Gabriel would not have made the loan if he had known of Mr Little's intention.

A curious feature of the case was that BPE's instructions to act for Mr Gabriel had been provided by Mr Little, who left a voice mail message for the solicitor involved informing him that he intended to sell the property to Whiteshore and that Mr Gabriel would lend him the money. The loan documentation as drafted did not, therefore, reflect Mr Little's actual intentions or the instructions he had provided to BPE (which BPE had not in fact confirmed with Mr Gabriel, their client).

Mr Gabriel sued everyone involved, but his claims against Mr Little, High Tech and Whiteshore were dismissed at trial, as was a claim against BPE for dishonest assistance. Mr Gabriel also advanced a claim against BPE for negligence. That claim succeeded at trial and gave rise to the subsequent appeals.

The basis of the claim in negligence was that BPE should have explained to Mr Gabriel how the funds were in fact going to be applied. Instead of doing so, it negligently drafted the loan documentation in a manner which did not reflect Mr Little's intentions, and thereby misled Mr Gabriel into believing that the funds would be utilised in accordance with his understanding. Mr Gabriel claimed the whole of his lost advance.

At trial, BPE argued that the development had never been viable, meaning that Mr Gabriel would have lost the whole of his loan even if the proceeds had been used as he intended. The trial judge agreed with BPE that if the development was "unviable and bound to fail so that Mr Gabriel would never have recovered his loan" then BPE would not be liable for the losses claimed. He nonetheless went on to say that he did not "think it would be right for me to conclude that this was necessarily going to be a doomed venture for Mr Gabriel from the outset." Having held that BPE had acted negligently he gave judgment in favour of Mr Gabriel.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned this finding and held that, even if the loan had been used to develop the property, it would not have been improved in value and Mr Gabriel would have suffered the same amount of losses in any event. In the face of this finding, Mr Gabriel argued that, nonetheless, had he been informed of how the third party intended to use the loan, he would have appreciated the transaction was not viable and not made any loan to the third party. On this basis, he argued he was entitled to all his losses from the transaction.

Applying the SAAMCO principle, the Court of Appeal held that BPE only owed Mr Gabriel a duty to provide discrete information and advice to allow him to decide for himself whether to make a loan to the third party and not to advise on what course of action to take or as to the commercial risks of the relevant loan. Accordingly, BPE were only liable to the extent that loss was attributable to something wrong in their advice.

As Mr Gabriel would have suffered the same losses even if the loan had been used to develop the property, his losses were not attributable to BPE's failure to report how the third party intended to use the loan but, instead, to his decision to make the loan. The claimant was prepared to risk the possibility that the third party would default and the property would not increase in value despite being developed and so could not recover damages from his solicitors for those risks eventuating. The claimant alone was responsible for the decision to make the loan.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Lord Sumption, giving the judgment of the Supreme Court, said that the SAAMCO decision had often been misunderstood. The misunderstanding arose from a tendency to overlook certain fundamental features of its reasoning.

He reiterated that where the professional supplies information which the client will take into account in making his own decision on the basis of a broader assessment of the risks, the professional has no legal responsibility for the decision because it falls outside the scope of his duty.

The principle has nothing to do with causation, as the term is usually understood. It is often accepted that the losses suffered by the client are, as a matter of causation, properly attributable to the adviser. That, however, is focusing on the wrong issue. Even if the client can prove that he would not have entered into a transaction but for receiving the negligent advice, that is insufficient to bring losses resulting from the transaction within the scope of the adviser's duty.

Lord Sumption recognised that the distinction between advice and information cases had given rise to confusion because of the descriptive inadequacy of the labels. They were neither distinct or mutually exclusive categories. He explained that information given by a professional to a client is usually a specific form of advice, and most advice will involve conveying information. Instead of focusing on terminology, however, one should focus on the nature of the distinction, which he described as follows:

"In cases falling within Lord Hoffmann's "advice" category, it is left to the adviser to consider what matters should be taken into account in deciding whether to enter into the transaction. His duty is to consider all relevant matters and not only specific factors in the decision. If one of those matters is negligently ignored or misjudged, and this proves to be critical to the decision, the client will in principle be entitled to recover all loss flowing from the transaction which he should have protected his client against.

By comparison, in the "information" category, a professional adviser contributes a limited part of the material on which his client will rely in deciding whether to enter into a prospective transaction, but the process of identifying the other relevant considerations and the overall assessment of the commercial merits of the transaction are exclusively matters for the client."

The important point, on which the distinction had been blurred even at the appellate level, was that if an advisor gives information that he knows is critical to the client's decision whether to enter into a transaction that does not transform an information case into an advice case. That would make the breach of duty more serious, and the argument on causation stronger, but would ignore the logically prior issue of the scope of the advisor's duty.

Lord Sumption clarified that in information cases, the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that the loss he is claiming was in fact caused by the falsity of the information provided. It is not sufficient for the claimant to prove that he sustained loss by entering into the transaction and to leave it to the professional to show that some or all of that loss was the consequence of other causes.

Application to the facts

Applying this analysis to the facts in BPE Solicitors, the first question was whether BPE had assumed responsibility for Mr Gabriel's decision to lend money to Mr Little. Lord Sumption came to the clear view that they had not. He held that their instructions were to draw up the facility agreement and the charge, and nothing more. They did not know, and did not need to know, what had passed between Mr Gabriel and Mr Little, except that they had agreed upon a loan of £200,000 secured by a charge on property. They simply included in the draft facility agreement by oversight language which by an unhappy chance confirmed that assumption.

The Deputy Judge at first instance had been wrong to hold that the solicitors' breach of duty "meant that Mr Gabriel was not able to know the true nature of the loan transaction into which he was entering." That was not relevant to the scope of the BPE's duty of care. Lord Sumption continued:

"On the footing that BPE was not legally responsible for Mr Gabriel's decision to lend the money, but only for confirming his assumption about one of a number of factors in his assessment of the project, the next question is what if any loss was attributable to that assumption being wrong. The answer is that if it had been right, Mr Gabriel would still have lost his money because the expenditure of £200,000 would not have enhanced the value of the property. The development would have been left incomplete, the loan unpaid and the property substantially worthless when it came to be sold into a depressed market. None of the loss which Mr Gabriel suffered was within the scope of BPE's duty. None of it was loss against which BPE was duty bound to take reasonable care to protect him. It arose from commercial misjudgements which were no concern of theirs."

On this basis the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.

Practical lessons

The SAAMCO principle is important because it will enable a negligent professional to avoid liability for losses suffered by the client in certain circumstances. Each party to a professional relationship should be aware of the principle both at the time when the professional is acting and during any subsequent litigation.

In particular, to avoid potential disputes it is in both parties' interests to clarify the terms of the retainer and any subsequent changes to it. This will not necessarily be determinative of the scope of the professional's duty, but will go a good way towards reducing the scope for argument.

A client seeking advice as to whether or not to enter into a transaction should make this clear, and should be careful not to appear as seeking information only as to one or more aspects of it. A professional, on the other hand, should take care not to 'over market' the services he is providing so as to give the impression that he is providing advice as to the viability of the transaction when in fact he is merely providing information as to one aspect of it.

A claimant bringing a claim against a professional who has only provided information needs to be realistic about his ability to prove, as a necessary part of his case, that the loss was indeed a consequence of the relevant negligence, and not of entering into a transaction that was in any event flawed. This may involve proving a difficult negative. A professional defending a claim should seek clarification, as early as possible, as to exactly how the claimant intends to establish that the loss claimed was within the scope of the duty.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions