← All Authorities
United Kingdom professional negligenceaccrual of cause of actioncontingent liability

Integral Memory PLC v Haines Watts

[2012] EWHC 342 (Ch)
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtHigh Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Year2012
StatusPersuasive authority

Key Principle

Where a professional adviser's tax advice was correct when given but is rendered wrong by a subsequent change in the law, the failure thereafter to alert the client is, for limitation purposes, a continuing failure to remedy the existing breach rather than the commission of a fresh breach giving rise to a new cause of action; and a tax liability is not contingent on its determination by a tribunal or court.

Area of Law

General

Related Cases

TNLC & Anor v Gambling Commission & Ors [2026] EWHC 891 (TCC)
Aabar Holdings S.A.R.L. and others v Glencore Plc and others [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm)
Waterside Class Limited v Mowi ASA & Ors [2026] CAT 32

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Integral Memory PLC v Haines Watts and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Integral Memory PLC v Haines W...