Guernsey Legal Resources

  It is doubtful whether the French doctrine of non-cumul has any place in Guernsey law. The doctrine is to the effect that a person with the benefit of a contractual obligation cannot improve his position by invoking tortious responsibility on the part of the other party to the contract and add it to the contractual aspect of his action. Nor can he elect between the two types of responsibility and choose to rely on the one which is more beneficial to his case.

  The law of tort in the Channel Islands, however, is largely based on English law (Public Servs. Cttee. v. Maynard, 1996 JLR 343, observations of Southwell, J.A. applied). Since the mid-19th century, that law has recognized that the breach of a contractual relationship which creates a duty of care will support an action for a remedy in contract or tort at the election of the plaintiff (Boorman v. Brown (1842), 3 Q.B. 511, dicta of Tindal, C.J. applied; Brown v. Boorman (1844), 11 Cl. & Fin. 1, dicta of Lord Campbell, C.J. applied). It has now evolved into the wider principle that if someone suffers economic loss as a result of relying on the allegedly negligent advice of a person who is sufficiently proximate to him, that person comes within the scope of the obligation to use the reasonable care and skill the law imposes on someone who holds himself out as possessing special skill and knowledge in the field in which he gives advice. An action based on the professional negligence of, e.g. an advocate, a bank, or a financial adviser, therefore lies either in contract or tort, if the relationship is based on contract, or in tort if it is not (Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465, applied; Anns v. Merton London B.C., [1978] A.C. 729, applied; Yianni v. Edwin Evans & Sons, [1982] Q.B. 438, applied).