Bird & Bird has lost its appeal against a £1.8 million professional negligence claim.

In 2010 Bird & Bird was instructed by Hong Kong property company Orientfield in 2010 to buy a ludicrously decorated seven bedroom mansion in St John's Wood. One of its real estate lawyers working on the matter failed to send Orientfield a planning report showing that a nearby school was going to be redeveloped into an academy which could adversely impact upon the house. When Orientfield discovered the issue it pulled out of the purchase, losing half of its £2.5 million deposit on the £25 million pile in the process.

Orientfield successfully sued 2Birds in the High Court and the firm was ordered to pay £1.8 million in damages, plus interest, plus costs. After discussing the result with its insurers, 2Birds decided to appeal. Its lawyers, Triton Global, argued in the Court of Appeal that the original judge "failed to make any specific findings as to what the appellant should have included in its summary" of the critical planning report "had it been acting as a non-negligent solicitor”. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and Lady Justice Gloster ruled that the High Court judge "reached the wholly unsurprising conclusion that a non-negligent summary would have resulted in the detail of the development emerging”.

  What the Court of Appeal didn't say: "Using trellising as walls and a roof enlivens dim interiors."

  "A tin of apples and five remote controls in a line will set off your basement log beautifully."


  "This season's must-have is a racist trumpet boy table."

2Birds should ask for a contribution from the mansion's sellers, who benefited considerably from a poor property lawyer's fumble. After the sale to Orientfield fell through, they kept half the deposit and then sold the property to Elisabeth Murdoch for the considerably greater sum of £38.5 million. The firm declined to comment.
Tip Off ROF