Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability, 9th edition (4th Supplement only)

Jackson & Powell is the definitive text on Professional Liability. It is an essential reference point for every practitioner as it aids them in establishing whether a duty of care exists and whether it has been breached, providing quick access with confidence as to whether a cause of action exists while explaining the remedies available.

The Fourth Supplement to the Ninth edition brings the main work up-to-date, including but not limited the following significant new cases and developments:

• Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33: the Supreme Court for the first time recognised an ‘interference’ basis for the recognition of a duty of care.
• URS Corp Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21: the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s analysis in URS Corp Ltd ([2023] EWCA Civ 772), rejecting the argument that losses assumed voluntarily must necessarily fall outside the scope of duty owed by a professional and further determined the impact this has on Pirelli ([1983] 2 A.C. 1).
• Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17: the Supreme Court determined that claims brought against directors that rely on a personal assumption of responsibility are not bound to fail as a matter of principle.
• Wirral Council v Indivior plc [2025] EWCA Civ 40 the Court of Appeal considered large class claims and role of the Civil Procedure Rules, following the ruling in the Lloyd case ([2021] UKSC 50), offering guidance pertaining to the requirement that all those party to such action would be required to have the same interest, noting where the threshold criteria are met, the decision whether to allow a case to proceed as a representative action is unfettered and involves a careful review of the advantages and disadvantages.
• Desai v Wood [2025] EWCA Civ 906 the Court of Appeal held a payment made by an insurer to its insured under a professional indemnity insurance policy, following intimation of a professional negligence claim, is held beneficially by the insured and not on trust for the claimants that intimated the claim.
• Vanquis Bank Ltd v TMS Legal Ltd [2025] EWHC 1599 (KB) the King’s Bench considered the matter of solicitors acting for borrowers, whom could in principle be liable to their lender for causing loss by unlawful means if they recklessly submitted claims to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• FCA v Bluecrest Capital Management (UK) LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 1125 the Court of Appeal examined the scope of the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction in regulatory decisions.
• Hopcraft and ors v Close Brothers Limited [2025] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court considered three conjoined appeals concerning the payment of commission by lenders to motor dealerships in connection with the hire-purchase of cars, in which it held the legislative backdrop created a statutory agency between lender and dealer, which did not place the dealer in a position of undertaking a duty of single-minded loyalty, and that the typical features of such transactions did not give rise to a fiduciary duty.