Click the case name for better results:

Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm): CA 8 Jul 2004

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

In re Suffield and Watts, Ex parte Brown: CA 1888

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

Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others: HL 5 Dec 2002

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

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 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

Garbutt and Another v Edwards and Another: CA 27 Oct 2005

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

Kooragang Investments Pty Ltd v Richardson and Wrench Ltd: PC 27 Jul 1981

(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

Langley Holdings v Seakens: QBD 19 Oct 2000

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

Naylor v Preston Health Authority: CA 1987

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

United Bank of Kuwait Ltd v Hammond and Others: CA 1988

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

de Lasala v de Lasala: PC 4 Apr 1979

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

Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd: CA 1977

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

Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd: CA 1967

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