John Ross KC

Recognised as a leading practitioner since before the Directories came into being (see ‘Law Magazine 19.2.88 – recommended counsel), John Ross is recognised for his being “a very agreeable opponent – very good to deal with and appears in a lot of leading professional negligence cases.”

Throughout his long and respected career his practice has covered all the professions, but with an emphasis on insurance broker, solicitor, barrister, accountant and surveyor negligence claims. He acted in the lead accountancy negligence case of Grimm v. Newman [2003] 1 All E.R. 67, which confirmed the need for a claimant to prove that ‘but-for’ the advice complained of a financial loss would have been avoided. He also appeared in the lead barrister’s negligence case of Moy v. Pettman Smith  (concerning settlement decisions taken by a barrister at the court door immediately before the commencement of a trial and the nature and extent of the advice a barrister is required to give to a client at that stage). His appearances before the Court of Appeal have included the lead cases on the making of a wasted costs order against a legal adviser – Dempsey v Johnstone [2003] EWCA Civ 1134 – and the ability to assign the benefit of a building contract – Stansell Ltd v Co-op (CWS) [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1704

John Ross KC has a strong and broad Professional Negligence Practice, acting both for claimants and defendants/their insurers. He is instructed in a wide range of actions in this field including claims against solicitors, barristers, architects, valuers, surveyors, accountants and insurance brokers and regularly advises on indemnity policy issues associated with such claims. As will be appreciated many professional negligence policies contain arbitration clauses which mean that policy construction disputes can only be dealt with by arbitrators whose rulings are covered by confidentiality prohibitions. Accordingly, these important disputes are not reported or capable of being publicised (hence they are not included below). John Ross has been involved in some of these disputes.

He was elected Vice Chair of the PNBA for 2010-2011 and Chair for 2012-2013.

Reported Cases

There are a large number of these stretching back to 2001 – Grimm v Newman [2002] STC 84/[2002] EWCA Civ 1621 (accountant’s advice on tax issue)’ Moy v Pettman Smith [2003] EWCA Civ 467 (barrister’s settlement advice at court door), Dempsey v Johnstone [2003] EWCA Civ 1134 (grounds for wasted costs order against solicitor for unsuccessful claimant); College Credit v. National Gurantee Corp Ltd & Anor [2004] EWHC 978 (Comm) (broker’s alleged negligence); etc.

Notable Professional Negligence cases

• Islam v CLP & Bond Adams [2020] 6 WLUK 381
  

  This case concerns negligent advice tendered to a client in relation to the creation of and terms of an Option Agreement. The claimants (husband and wife) were advised by the First Defendant firm to sign an Option Agreement. It was in improper form and contained terms which the claimants had instructed their solicitor they would not agree to. The document they signed contained only a signature page and so they were not aware of the terms contained in the rest of the body of the agreement. They were then advised to contest the validity of the Option Agreement on grounds which were designed to conceal from the clients (and the Court) their own negligence in the creation of the Agreement. Those proceedings in the Chancery Division (HC13D05396 and HC14D02376), which were conducted by the Second Defendant not surprisingly failed. The Second Defendant firm issued an application to strike out the claim and/or for the imposition of terms on the Claimants’ right to proceed with the claim. That issue was fought out before Mr Justice Knowles. The application to strike out the claim failed. There were issues concerning the contemporaneity of attendance notes which were produced and the legal consequences of asking a client to sign a signature sheet which has been detached from the main body of an Agreement, having regard to the provisions of s.2 of the Law of Property (Misc. Provisions) Act 1989.

• Lady Brownlie v FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLP [2019] EWHC 2533 (QB)
  

  This is a widow’s claim against a Four Seasons hotel company which operates or manages the Cairo Four Seasons hotel which offered her and her husband a safari excursion into the desert.
  On the return journey the vehicle suffered tyre blow-out (it was defective and improperly maintained). Her husband (one of Britain’s leading international law experts) and his daughter were killed. The driver was prosecuted in Egypt and convicted of manslaughter.

  Proceedings were issued against the Four Seasons group parent company for the negligent implementation of its service contract duties and its breach of its duty of care. That company contested the decision to serve proceedings on it out of the jurisdiction and to have the claim tried in this country.

  It has become a leading case on the right to sue for damages for breach of contract in this jurisdiction in relation to a contract for services which are to be performed in another country and for damages for tortiously sustained injuries where some damage has been suffered within this jurisdiction.

  Notwithstanding the clear obiter dicta of the majority in their judgments which supported the Claimant’s right to sue in this jurisdiction both in contract and in tort, when the Claimant’s application for permission to substitute LLC as the correct Defendant, it used the opportunity to seek to re-argue that entitlement. Nicol J ruled against them on both those grounds. He also rejected the defence that England was not the correct forum in which to litigate the claim.

  This important judgment by Nicol J has also clarified the law on the circumstances in which a Claimant can substitute a new party as a Defendant even after a limitation period has expired, if the error arose from a mistake as to the correct identity of the other contracting party. This clarification follows a series of Court of Appeal and first instance decisions on a difficult area of procedural law.

  It was John Ross’ knowledge of procedural law that enabled him to persuade the Supreme Court to permit the application to substitute to be made pursuant to various provisions of the CPR and to persuade Nicol J to allow the substitution.