References: [1968] 2 QB 259, [1968] 1 All ER 543
Coram: Diplock LJ
Ratio: The court described the peculiarly difficult position of a solicitor sued for the negligence of losing litigation for his client by reason of having his client’s claim struck out: ‘It is true that if the action for professional negligence were fought, the court which tried it would have to assess what those chances were. But on this issue the plaintiff would be in a much more advantageous position than if he had sought, despite the inordinate delay, to establish liability against the defendant in the action which had been dismissed. Not only would there be available to him any advice or material which had been given or obtained by his solicitor in support of his case in the dismissed action, but the principle of Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra. 505 would apply and would impose upon the solicitor the onus of satisfying the court that the plaintiff’s claim in the dismissed action would not have succeeded had it been prosecuted with diligence. This would be a heavy onus to sustain after so a great a lapse of time.’ and ‘The probabilities are that in any case in which the plaintiff had been advised to bring the action which had been dismissed and had never been advised to discontinue it, his subsequent action against his solicitor for negligence would be settled. One would hope that, for the good name of the profession, it would be settled promptly.’ As to the breach of the court rules the Court might strike out a claimant’s case where the breach ‘has been intentional and contumelious…’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD ((1722) 1 Stra 505, Bailii, [1722] EWHC KB J94, [1722] 93 ER 664)
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD (Times 08-Dec-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA 198, [2000] BCLC 187)
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . . - Cited – Mount v Barker Austin (a Firm) CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 277, (1998) PNLR 493)
The plaintiff sought damages for professional negligence from his former solicitors in respect of their conduct of a claim on his behalf. He succeeded, but was awarded no damages because the judge had found that his action would be bound to fail. He . . - Cited – Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm) CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1005, Times 02-Aug-04, [2007] Lloyds Rep PN 20)
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 . . - Cited – In re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd CA ([1992] 1 WLR 1196)
An ‘unless order’ for the service of particulars of defence was a not obeyed but application was made to amend the defence involving the abandonment of the paragraphs of which particulars had been ordered.
Held: ‘it appears to me that there . . - Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA (Times 07-Jul-00, [2000] CP Rep 59, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 200, [2001] BCC 591, [2000] BCLC 167)
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 08 March 2019
Ref: 180392
