<p><img src="[images%7COpenAccessDataProvider%7Ctmb%3Acarouselth]0bded6f0-c0f8-4e95-92bb-74dafc61cd5f" style="background-color:initial;font-size:inherit;" sf-size="100"><br></p><div><p>The recent case of <i style="font-size:inherit;background-color:initial;">Russell v Stone (trading as PSP Consultants)</i>
<a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=8V75-DT32-D6MY-P43M&csi=316762&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank" style="font-size:inherit;">[2019] EWHC 831 (TCC)</a> concerns a professional negligence claim against a firm of quantity surveyors (PSP) in relation to a residential project that was beset with problems. The general thrust of the claim was that PSP’s alleged negligence caused the claimants
to spend significantly more on their property than they ought to have done. In particular, it was alleged that PSP failed properly to manage and/or advise on the tender process.
</p><div><p>The court held that PSP had not been negligent and, even if it had, the claimants’ case would have failed on the issue of causation. This blog post focuses on the difficulties the claimants faced in proving causation, a common theme
in claims against construction professionals. </p></div></div>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
High Court dismisses professional negligence claim against quantity surveyor
