S - Solicitor's negligence
1/2/24
WALKER v IRWIN MITCHELL LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 53
Solicitors offering advice on a helpline had no retainer with the caller but had owed the caller a duty of care. The firm had only given high-level preliminary advice which was accurate and the scope of its duty had not required it to give wider-ranging advice about steps the caller might take to protect her position before issuing proceedings and in particular steps to ensure that a tour operator notified its insurer so as to safeguard against the risk of unenforceability of any judgment later obtained if the tour operator became insolvent.
18/6/20
LIV BRIDGING FINANCE LTD v EAD SOLICITORS LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2020] EWHC 1590 (Ch)
The claimant sought summary judgment on claims that the defendant solicitors had paid away monies without obtaining security for loans advanced by the claimant. The court summarised the principles to be applied on applications for summary judgment [18] and principles governing the assessment of equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty [22]. The solicitors paid out the money in the knowledge that this was contrary to the conditions on which it was held so as to give rise to a breach of trust [33]. Equitable compensation was limited to losses falling within the scope of the firm’s duty to obtain a first charge [35]. In relation to loans where there was no evidence of any likely repayment and the court was satisfied that no loss would have been suffered if security had been provided, summary judgment was given for the full amount of the advances [36]. The court refused summary judgment in relation to loans where there was evidence that more than the sums advanced had been repaid [37] because claims for arrangement fees and interest required investigation at trial [38].
28/2/18
STEEL v NRAM LTD [2018] UKSC 13
A solicitor, acting for a borrower, was not liable to the lender bank for negligent misrepresentation. It had not been reasonable for the lender to rely on statements made by the solicitor without independent inquiry. The lender could have checked the accuracy of the statements made on behalf of the borrower, against the material in its file.
4/9/17
THOMAS v HUGH JAMES FORD SIMEY SOLICITORS [2017] EWCA Civ 1303
Solicitors acting in a high volume, fixed costs scheme for low value personal injury cases, were held not to have been under a duty to advise about heads of claim which the client had said he did not wish to pursue and for which he said he could not provide supporting evidence. If a client instructs his solicitor that he does not wish to pursue a particular head of claim and that he does not have evidence to support it, the solicitor is not necessarily under a duty to challenge that decision or to try to change the client's mind. If the client is an adult of full capacity, there comes a point when his autonomy should be respected [42].
11/11/15
GOLDSMITH WILLIAMS SOLICITORS v E-SURV LTD [2015] EWCA Civ 1147
A solicitor had been in breach of the duties which it owed to a mortgage lender in failing to report non-confidential information as to a recent purchase price recorded at the Land Registry which cast doubt on a valuation. Duties of solicitors acting for lender and borrower discussed [32]. But a claim by the valuer for a contribution from the solicitor failed as the valuer failed to prove that provision of the information by the solicitor to the lender would have made any difference, so causation was not established.
17/7/15
WILLIAMS v HCB SOLICITORS LIMITED [2015] EWHC 2064 (QB)
The court granted summary judgment dismissing a claim that documents drawn up by the defendant to transfer intellectual property rights were ineffective. The court held that the agreements drafted by the defendant had been effective to do what it was required that they should do. In the circumstances losses claimed could not have been caused by the breach of duty alleged.
7/7/15
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v GIAMBRONE & LAW [2015] EWHC 1946 (QB)
The defendants had been negligent in the drafting of a contract. Issues of causation were adjourned.
7/5/15
CHINNOCK v VEALE WASBROUGH [2015] EWCA Civ 441
A professional negligence claim was time-barred. The claimant had constructive notice, outside the secondary limitation period in s 14A Limitation Act 1980, that she had a viable claim.
27/2/15
KANDOLA v MIRZA SOLICITORS LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)
Considers the extent to which a solicitor should explain particular risks to a client depending on the client’s apparent level of understanding. On the facts the solicitor had adequately explained the risk of losing a deposit in a conveyancing transaction and the solicitor had not been obliged to make searches that would have revealed the existence of a bankruptcy petition.
19/12/14
BARNETT v CREGGY [2014] EWHC 3080 (Ch)
Claim for an account against a solicitor and defence of limitation.
5/11/14
AIB GROUP (UK) PLC v MARK REDLER & CO SOLICITORS [2014] UKSC 58
Solicitors had committed a breach of trust in relation to a remortgage advance by releasing the funds without having an undertaking from to a third party to discharge an existing charge, and without having held back sufficient funds for that purpose. As a commercial matter and in practical terms the transaction had completed when the loan monies were released. In those circumstances in calculating equitable compensation it was right to take into account the fact the lender had obtained a second mortgage and the sum awarded to the lender was rightly limited to the sum wrongly paid to the borrower which should have been used to discharge the third party’s prior charge.
14/10/14
DOWLING v BENNETT GRIFFIN [2014] EWCA Civ 1545
Solicitors had not been negligent in failing to make an application requiring the defendant to litigation to disclose his insurance cover.
8/7/14
CREDIT & MERCANTILE PLC v NABARRO [2014] EWHC (Ch)
Considers the circumstances in which a mortgage lender can be entitled to recover from a negligent solicitor, the lender’s whole loss from entering into a mortgage transaction. Where a solicitor failed to report that planning permission was for development extending to adjoining land on which the lender had no security, the lender’s loss was limited to the difference between the actual value of a property and its value with planning permission capable of being implemented.
11/3/14
WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP v WITHERS LLP [2014] EWHC 556 (Ch)
Solicitors were negligent in drafting an option in a limited liability partnership agreement which allowed an investor to withdraw half its capital contribution in the first 41 months of the agreement. The firm had not been given instructions to include that provision. The court summarised the principles to be applied in assessing loss of business profits on the basis of a loss of chance claim [183].
22/11/13
GABRIEL v LITTLE [2013] EWCA Civ 1513
Although a solicitor had been negligent in failing to pass on information to his client when preparing a loan agreement, the client’s losses were not within the scope of the solicitor’s duty nor caused by the breach.
11/10/13
MATHIESON v CLINTONS [2013] EWHC 3056 (Ch)
Solicitors had been negligent in failing to explain the operation of a provision in a shareholder agreement to its client, but a claim that the firm had concealed relevant facts from the client failed and the claim was time-barred.
19/6/13
FROST v WAKE SMITH & TOTFIELDS SOLICITORS [2013] EWCA Civ 1960
A solicitor had not been negligent by failing to ensure that an agreement reached at mediation was enforceable. On the facts finality would not have been possible and a framework for agreement was all that could be expected. Although the solicitor should have advised his client whether a binding agreement had been made, the complaint that he had not done so had not been pleaded and could not now be argued.
11/3/13
CLACK v WRIGLEYS SOLICITORS LLP [2013] EWHC 413 (Ch)
Solicitors retained to prepare a loan agreement and charge on shares as security, were negligent in failing to obtain the share certificate and to ensure the shares were registered to the chargor. A legal charge on shares is incomplete until the shares are registered in the chargor’s name. In the absence of evidence that the chargor had given value for the shares, it could not be said that the chargor had an equitable interest because equity will not aid a volunteer. It was doubtful that the existence of a transfer signed by the chargor was sufficient to evidence the security, but in any event the company could not lawfully gift shares to a volunteer.
12/2/13
UCB HOME LOANS CORP LTD v SONI [2013] EWCA Civ 62
A partner in a solicitor's firm fraudulently misrepresented to a mortgage lender that he was carrying on business in partnership with the defendant under the name of a firm at a particular address. Although the two were in partnership, they traded from a different address. The defendant had not known or allowed that misrepresentation to be made and could not therefore be liable to the lender under s 14 Partnership Act 1890.
8/2/13
AIB GROUP (UK) PLC v MARK REDLER & CO SOLICITORS [2013] EWCA Civ 45
Solicitors had committed a breach of trust in relation to a remortgage advance by releasing the funds without the necessary third party undertakings to discharge its existing charge, so completion could not be said to have taken place. The breach of trust was committed in relation to the entirety of the remortgage funds, not just the sum wrongly paid to the borrower which should also have been applied in discharge of the existing charge. But in calculating equitable compensation it was right to take into account the fact the lender had obtained a second mortgage and the sum awarded to the lender was rightly limited to the sum wrongly paid to the borrower.
14/5/12
EDENWEST LTD v CMS CAMERON MCKENNA LLP [2012] EWHC 1258 (Ch)
The claimant's insurers repudiated cover for misrepresentation/non-disclosure. The claimant's bankers and proposed administrative receivers took advice from the defendant on the merits of a claim against the brokers who arranged the policy, and following their appointment the receivers assigned the claim for £100,000. The brokers settled a claim by the assignee for far more than £100,000. The claimant alleged the defendant's advice on the merits of the claim had been negligent and claimed damages on the basis that the defendant had owed it a duty of care directly or through the agency of the receivers. The defendant was granted summary judgment dismissing the claim. The defendant had been instructed by the receivers in their own name, not on behalf of the claimant. The fact that the receivers were agents of the claimant and the advice concerned the claimant's assets was not enough to establish a contractual retainer. Nor did a duty of care exist in tort following Raja v Austin Gray.
26/4/12
MORTGAGE EXPRESS v ABENSONS SOLICITORS [2012] EWHC 1000 (Ch)
The fact that a solicitor acted in breach of fiduciary duty in a mortgage transaction by failing to disclose relevant information to the mortgagee, did not necessarily mean there had been deliberate commission of a breach of duty so as to bring the claim within the extended limitation period applicable under s 32(2) Limitation Act 1980. Although a breach of the fiduciary duty of good faith requires that the solicitor is conscious of his breach of duty, it was arguable that breach of the fiduciary duty not to allow an actual conflict of interest to arise does not require the same mental element and might be committed in circumstances where the breach was not a deliberate in the sense required to bring the case within s 32(2).
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer