Bird v Ford

The case of Bird v Ford involved a dispute concerning professional negligence, specifically in relation to advice provided by the defendants, Ford and his firm, regarding the Education Act 1990. The plaintiffs, Bird and his wife, alleged that they were misled regarding Ford's expertise, that they were given negligent advice, and that the advice was clearly wrong. The case was heard by the court, which had to decide whether the advice provided was negligent and whether it led to the plaintiffs' economic and non-economic losses.

The court was required to determine whether Ford and his firm were negligent in providing advice about the Education Act 1990, and whether this advice misled the plaintiffs regarding the defendants' expertise. Another key issue was whether the advice given was negligent or clearly wrong, and whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs' economic and non-economic losses. The court also had to consider the issue of immunity from suit, whether the proceedings were entirely misconceived and without prospects of success, and the question of causation and damages.

The court found that the first defendant's evidence was more reliable than that of the first plaintiff. The court held that the advice given by Ford and his firm was negligent or clearly wrong, and that the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs' economic and non-economic losses. The court also found that the proceedings were not entirely misconceived and had prospects of success. The court ordered Ford and his firm to pay damages to the plaintiffs for their economic and non-economic losses, as well as legal expenses and medical treatment expenses. The court also found that the defendants were proportionately liable for the damages awarded.

The court granted the defendants leave to rely upon a late-served affidavit and made orders for the payment of damages, costs, and expenses.