Legal Articles

Claims in negligence: a limitation reminder

Home / Knowledge base / Claims in negligence: a limitation reminder

Posted by Matthew Goodwin on 08 June 2017

Matthew Goodwin - Tax Disputes Lawyer
Matthew Goodwin Associate-Solicitor-Advocate

The industry has received a stark reminder of the time limits for bringing a professional negligence claim following the handing down of a judgment in the High Court in relation to a negligent tax adviser (Halsall and others v Champion Consulting Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 1079 (QB)). 

Halsall and others: speed read

  • Claimants were partners in a solicitors firm.  Defendant is a tax adviser firm.
  • In around 2003 the Claimants were introduced to two tax schemes by the Defendant: a “charity shell” scheme intended to obtain tax savings through Gift Aid, and a film fund scheme.
  • The Defendant maintained that it had only introduced the Claimants and had provided no advice in relation to the tax schemes.
  • In 2011 HMRC wrote to the Claimants questioning the legitimacy of the schemes.
  • Both schemes subsequently failed.  The Claimants brought proceedings against the Defendant for negligent advice and the loss and damage incurred as a result.
  • The Judge found that the Defendant had been negligent.  It did not advise the Claimants that there were significant risks that the schemes would be challenged by HMRC and its advice was flawed in relation to the success of the film scheme and the possible levels of loss if it failed.
  • However, despite the finding of negligence, the claim failed.  It had been brought over six years since the investment into the schemes and the Claimants had been on notice since 2011 (the HMRC letter) of the possible failure.

Professional negligence 

The overarching principle of whether or not a professional has been negligent is whether or not it has acted in accordance with what is expected of a reasonable body of competent professionals in that area (known as the Bolam test).  This is irrespective of whether there is a body of contrary opinion present in the industry at the time.

A distinction has been drawn by the court between (1) the provision of information for enabling someone to decide what steps they would like to take and (2) a duty on a professional to advise someone on what step they should take.   In (1), the adviser is only responsible if the information is wrong.  In (2) the adviser must take reasonable care to advise in relation to all potential outcomes of the advice.  If either one is negligent, the loss suffered must have been a foreseeable outcome of the advice.


The Limitation Act 1980 sets out the time limits which apply in bringing a negligence claim.  Section 2 states that a claim in negligence must be brought within 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. 

A cause of action accrues when the damage occurs.  In tax adviser negligence cases, indeed in many finance related negligence cases, the damage is held by the court to occur at the time that the claiming party entered into a transaction.  This could be a negligent investment by a financial adviser or, as in the Halsall case, the entering into tax schemes.

Given the realities of these types of claim, often several years will have passed before a party is aware of the negligence.  HMRC is not known for its quick processes, and it can often be several years from the commencement of a tax scheme before it is challenged.  If over 6 years has passed, the party who has suffered a loss may not be able to bring a claim.

There is a small loophole in limitation, to be found at section 14A of the Limitation Act.  In short this states that if the claiming party didn’t know, or could not reasonably have known, of the negligence, then a claim can be brought within 3 years of them finding out (irrespective of the 6 year period).  Section 14A is often of particular use in complex negligence claims where parties don’t know they have a claim for some time.  This can be outside of the 6 year period but is a very high threshold – only knowledge sufficient to investigate further is required.

Often, and as in the Halsall case, receipt of a letter from HMRC questioning the scheme will be sufficient to start time running for the purposes of section 14A.

There is a hard longstop time limit of 15 years from the negligence for any claim to be brought.

About the author

Matthew Goodwin


As an associate within the tax and financial services litigation team, Matthew regularly acts for corporates and individuals, dealing with a variety of disputes.

Matthew Goodwin

As an associate within the tax and financial services litigation team, Matthew regularly acts for corporates and individuals, dealing with a variety of disputes.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512