Dickson v Creevey

The matter before the court involved Dickson and another plaintiff suing their solicitor, Creevey, for negligence. The plaintiffs sought damages for economic and financial loss arising from the solicitor's failure to advise them of an opportunity to sue their employer for the psychiatric disorder suffered by the first plaintiff due to workplace harassment. The case turned on whether the solicitor should have advised the plaintiffs to sue their employer, and whether the plaintiffs would have followed that advice and been successful in such an action.

The court was required to determine the essentials of an action for negligence, particularly concerning economic or financial loss. The key issue was whether the solicitor owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs that required him to advise them to sue their employer before the limitation period expired. The court considered whether the plaintiffs would have followed the solicitor's advice and whether they would have succeeded in suing their employer. Additionally, the court examined the circumstances under which a professional adviser may be liable for economic loss caused by their failure to provide timely advice.

The court found that the solicitor did not owe the plaintiffs a duty of care to advise them to sue their employer. The court reasoned that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the solicitor's advice would lead to a successful claim against the employer. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence that they would have followed the advice, and the court was not satisfied that the plaintiffs would have succeeded in a claim against their employer. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiffs' action for negligence was dismissed.