‘Before stating the principle on which the Master acted on this taxation, it may be as well that I should state what we consider the principle upon which he ought to have acted. I think the question is one of considerable importance, and therefore, although it is only a question of reviewing taxation costs, I … Continue reading Harold v Smith: 1860
The defendant firm had negligently allowed a claim for damages against a firm of accountants to become statute barred. The defendants said the claim was of no or little value, since the claimant would have proceeded anyway. Held: The court had to bear in mind the distinction between the loss of chance directly through the … Continue reading Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm): CA 8 Jul 2004
A High Court judge had made an order in bankruptcy proceedings which had the effect of varying a charging order which he had earlier made under the Solicitors Act 1860. Held: A judge has jurisdiction to reverse his decision at any time until his order is perfected but not afterwards. Unlike the bankruptcy jurisdiction, the … Continue reading In re Suffield and Watts, Ex parte Brown: CA 1888
Sir Richard Malins V-C had permitted a petition to proceed which sought to vary an earlier order which he had made and which had been unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held: He had no power to do so. Any such power had disappeared with the Judicature Acts.Thesiger LJ added that, ‘whatever may have … Continue reading In re St Nazaire Company: CA 1879
The court was asked as to the extent to which a court, having once declared its decision, could later change its mind. Though this case arose with in care proceedings, the court asked it as a general question. The judge in a fact finding hearing in care proceedings had issued a provisional judgment, but after … Continue reading Re L and B (Children): SC 20 Feb 2013
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners. Held: The acts complained of were so close to the activities which a solicitor would normally undertake, that … Continue reading Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others: HL 5 Dec 2002
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers. Held: (Millett LJ dissenting) The conveyance to the solicitor left the solicitor holding the property as bare trustee for … Continue reading Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 28 Jul 1997
The client challenged his opponent’s solicitors bill of costs, saying that the other side had not been given an estimate of costs. The solicitor acted on several matters for the client and had not given a formal estmate. Held: The absence of the estimate should not deprive the solicitor of payment for the work undertaken … Continue reading Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005
(New South Wales) An employee of the defendants was authorised to carry out valuations, but he negligently carried out an unauthorised private valuation. Held: In doing so he was not acting as an employee of the defendant company. The company was not liable for his wrongful acts. The House rejected the broad proposition that so … Continue reading Kooragang Investments Pty Ltd v Richardson and Wrench Ltd: PC 27 Jul 1981
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement. Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the CFA, as a matter of fairness she should ordinarily be put … Continue reading Hollins v Russell etc: CA 22 May 2003
Misuse of Power for ulterior object D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the … Continue reading Grainger v Hill: CEC 1838
The claimant sought recovery from one of two partners in a solicitors’ firm of solicitors of sums paid to the firm and misappropriated by the partner, who had conspired with others to offer a fraudulent investment. The claimant admitted that the promised return was incredible. The funds were received on an undertaking that they would … Continue reading Langley Holdings v Seakens: QBD 19 Oct 2000
The purposes of discovery include not only obtaining relevant evidence, but also reducing surprise and promoting fairness by putting parties in an equal position at trial, so that the parties are ‘playing with all the cards face up on the table’ the Master of the Rolls considered that there is ‘a duty of candour resting … Continue reading Naylor v Preston Health Authority: CA 1987
It will only be in the ordinary course of business of the firm for a solicitor to do an act where there was an underlying transaction of a kind which was part of the usual business of a solicitor. ‘On the facts represented to the [third party] would a reasonably careful and competent person [such … Continue reading United Bank of Kuwait Ltd v Hammond and Others: CA 1988
No Revisiting of Capital Claim after Compromise (Hong Kong) Where capital claims are compromised in a once-for-all court order they cannot be revisited or reissued in the absence of a substantial mistake. Capital orders are ‘once-for-all orders’. The legal effect of the order derives not from the consent of the parties but from the making … Continue reading de Lasala v de Lasala: PC 4 Apr 1979
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors of the paper for the same relief. Some of the … Continue reading Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd: CA 1977
Letter Without Prejudice Save as to Costs Husband and wife disputed provision under 1973 Act, and a summons under section 17 of the 1882 Act. The wife had offered to transfer a house to H occupied by his mother, worth about pounds 12,000, in return for him leaving the matrimonial home. He refused the offer … Continue reading Calderbank v Calderbank: CA 5 Jun 1975
Establishing Clean Break on Divorce The House set out the principles for establishing a ‘clean break’ financial settlement on a divorce. Once a capital claim in a divorce has been given effect in a court order, the court does not have jurisdiction to vary it. Lord Scarman said: ‘Once an application has been dealt with … Continue reading Minton v Minton: HL 1979
Sham requires common intent to create other result The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham. Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention that the act … Continue reading Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd: CA 1967
In family proceedings, a costs letter had been written in the form suggested in Calderbank.
Held: The court accepted and endorsed the practice suggested by Cairns LJ. Ormrod LJ said: ‘The important factor which distinguishes this case is the . .
It is not within the actual authority of a solicitor’s clerk to commit a fraud. But it is within his ostensible authority to perform acts of the class which solicitors would normally carry out: ‘so long as he is acting within the scope of that class . .
The defendant had made misrepresentations, inducing the claimant to enter into share transactions which he would not otherwise have entered into, and which lost money.
Held: A deceitful wrongdoer is properly liable for all actual damage . .
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .