A solicitor had claimed to have the capital in his capital account paid to him on his retirement, pursuant to an agreement to that effect made with his partner. That partner now appealed against an order made in favour of the claimant.
Longmore, Tomlinson, Sales LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 564
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.548093
FTTTx Income tax – self-assessment – HMRC strike out application – barrister – move from cash to true and fair basis – time limit for overpayment relief – overpayment between two underpayment years – tax paid twice on same profits – revenue discretion – Application of European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act – held – No jurisdiction to consider discretion applied by HMRC – High hurdle to rely on Human Rights legislation – Taxpayer and agents at fault – Out of time claim to tax repayment not ‘property’ for ECHR purposes -ECHR could not be relied on to extend time limits -Strike out allowed for overpayment year- ECHR claim against double taxation in earlier years -reasonable argument that disproportionate for HMRC to pursue tax already paid -application for strike out rejected for underpayment years.
[2015] UKFTT 80 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.543214
A judge of the Supreme Court of Malaya had been appointed in 1930 on the understanding that the retiring age should be sixty-two. When Malaya was overrun by the Japanese in 1942 he was retired on a pension, some time before he had reached sixty-two, on the footing that his office had been abolished. He claimed that he was protected by the Act of Settlement or alternatively by a contract that the Crown should employ him until the retiring age.
Held: A statutory office holder such as a judge is not employed under a contract. Unlike the judges of the Superior courts in England, the judges in the colonies did not enjoy the security of tenure as guaranteed under the 1700 Act and they held office at the pleasure of the Crown.
Lord Goddard CJ
[1953] 2 QB 482, [1953] 2 All ER 490, [1953] 3 WLR 331
Act of Settlement 1700
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – O’Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant was a part time recorder. He claimed to be entitled to a judicial pension.
Held: The Employment Appeal Tribunal was wrong to find an error of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal to extend time; but the court declined to . .
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.279054
The interest that the rule of champerty exists to protect (the individual interest) is that of the opposite party. Steyn LJ described contingency fee agreements as ‘nowadays perhaps the most important species of champerty’ and were ‘still unlawful’. He added that, while champerty had not ‘wither[ed] away’, its ‘scope . . has been shrunk greatly’. The correct question was whether ‘in accordance with contemporary public policy, the agreement has in fact caused the corruption of public justice. The court must consider the tendency of the agreement.’
Steyn LJ
[1993] 3 All ER 321
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Cited – De Crittenden v Bayliss CA 17-Jan-2002
The defendant appealed a judgment saying the arrangement under which the plaintiff had conducted the litigation was champertous.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘[A]lthough some of what Mr De Crittenden did could be described as ‘solicitors work’, . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.223622
An undertaking by one solicitor to another to pay costs must be honoured. A client’s fraudulent intent did not vitiate the solicitor’s undertaking.
Times 01-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 13-Sep-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.88855
(Saint Christopher and Nevis)
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKPC 42
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Subiah v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Nov-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the extent of damages for infringement of the claimant’s constitutional rights. He had been on board a bus. He complained when a policeman was allowed not to buy a ticket. The same constable arrested him as . .
Cited – Takitota v the Attorney General and others PC 18-Mar-2009
(Bahamas) The applicant a tourist had been wrongfully detained in appalling conditions in the Bahamas for over eight years after he lost his documents. He now appealed against an award of $500,000 dollars compensation.
Held: ‘it would not be . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.272496
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The protection of legal professional privilege was absolute save only where abrogated by statute. The statute provided that witnesses before the professional tribunal had the same protection as at law, and did not exclude legal professional privilege. It was an essential part of the legal process. Unless waived, ‘once privileged, always privileged’. The privilege is the same whether the documents are sought for the purpose of civil or criminal proceedings, and whether by the prosecution or the defence. A refusal to waive privilege cannot be questioned or investigated by the Court. Save in cases where the privileged communication is itself the means of carrying out a fraud, the privilege is absolute. Once the privilege is established, the lawyer’s mouth is ‘shut for ever’. This case involved a contest between two competing public interests of high importance: the maintenance of the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. No balancing exercise is to be performed: if the lawyer is to be able to give his client an absolute and unqualified assurance that what he tells him will not be disclosed without his consent in any circumstances, the assurance must follow and not precede the undertaking of any balancing exercise.
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Times 21-May-2003, [2003] UKPC 38, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2003] 2 AC 736, [2004] 4 All ER 269, [2003] 3 WLR 859
PC, Bailii
Law Practitioners Act 1982 (New Zealand) 101(3)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bolton v Liverpool Corporation HL 1833
The defendant sought to inspect the plaintiff’s instructions to his counsel, though not of the advice which counsel gave.
Held: The application was refused. Lord Brougham said: ‘It seems plain, that the course of justice must stop if such a . .
Cited – Gissing v Gissing HL 7-Jul-1970
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests
The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – Holmes v Baddeley HL 1844
Discussing professional legal privilege, Lord Lyndhurst said: ‘The principle upon which this rule is established is that communications between a party and his professional advisers, with a view to legal proceedings, should be unfettered; and they . .
Cited – Anderson v Bank of British Columbia CA 1876
Litigation was threatened against an English bank concerning the conduct of an account kept at the branch of the bank in Oregon. The English bank’s London manager thought it necessary to ascertain the full facts and cabled the branch manager in . .
Cited – Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company v Quick CA 1878
The water company sued its former engineer. Anticipating the action, documents were prepared for the company’s solicitor’s advice, though one (a shorthand transcript of a conversation between a chimney sweep employed by the company and the company’s . .
Cited – Pearce v Foster CA 1885
‘The privilege with regard to confidential communications between solicitor and client for professional purposes ought to be preserved, and not frittered away. The reason of the privilege is that there may be that free and confident communication . .
Cited – Wilson v Rastall 18-Jun-1792
Once legal professional privilege is established, the lawyer’s mouth is ‘shut for ever’. . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Black and Decker Inc v Flymo 1991
Legal professional privilege is a right to resist the compulsory disclosure of information. ‘It is not possible to assert a right to refuse to disclose in respect of a document which has already been disclosed. Once the document has passed into the . .
Cited – Bourns Inc v Raychem Corporation; Latham and Watkins (a Firm) CA 30-Mar-1999
Documents disclosed in support an application in a costs taxation, remained subject to implied duties of confidence, and they could not be used for any other purpose, including to support litigation abroad. Where questions of US law arose, a US . .
Cited by:
Rejected – Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Cited – Burkle Holdings Ltd v Laing TCC 23-Mar-2005
The parties had each instructed the same solicitor, but now disputed the entitlement of the other to see documents held by the solicitor. . .
Cited – Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society of England and Wales CA 14-Jul-2010
Q had provided professional indemnity insurance to a firm of solicitors in which the Law Society had intervened. Claims were made against the firm, but Q declined to pay, saying that the apparently fraudulent activities of the firm fell outside the . .
Cited – Seaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
Cited – Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD 6-Aug-2015
The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .
Cited – ZS v FS (Application To Prevent Solicitor Acting) FD 24-Oct-2017
Discosure of Confidences must be at risk
H sought to restrain W’s solicitors from acting. The firm was one of six firms approached to consider representing H, and he now said that certain matters had been diviluged to the firm.
Held: The legal principles were clear, and it was for H . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.182235
Once legal professional privilege is established, the lawyer’s mouth is ‘shut for ever’.
Buller J
(1792) 4 Durn and E 753, [1792] EngR 3089, (1792) 4 TR 753, (1792) 100 ER 1283
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.182246
Application to allow representation by a solicitor who was presently struck off the roll denied.
Thorpe LJ, Hooper LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 347
Bailii
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Guidance (McKenzie Friends) 2005
Sir Mark Potter gave guidance on the acceptance of McKenzie Friends as advocates: ‘A court may grant an unqualified person a right of audience in exceptional circumstances only and only after careful consideration (D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] . .
Cited by:
Cited – In Re N (A Child) FD 20-Aug-2008
There had been several hearings and the father had been assisted by a McKenzie friend permitted to address the court. The father now objected to the mother’s McKenzie friend being given similar leave.
Held: Whilst Dr Pelling might make a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.276352
The court had ordered the respondent to pay the claimant’s costs. These were high because the solicitors had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and disproportionate to the funds at issue. The respondents challenged assignments of the original CFA.
Held: The appeal failed. Unless the effect of the deeds was to discharge the original CFA and replace it with new agreements made at the dates of the deeds, the success fee may properly be included in the costs order. Whether a variation amends the principal agreement or discharges and replaces it depends on the intention of the parties. The deeds of variation were not a sham. An amendment of the existing CFA is a natural way of dealing with further proceedings in the same action. They therefore take effect according to their terms.
‘proceedings’ is not a defined term in the legislation, nor is it a term of art under the general law. Its meaning must depend on its statutory context and on the underlying purpose of the provision in which it appears, so far as that can be discerned.
If there had been ATE cover in respect of liability for the costs of the trial, the insured is entitled after the commencement date to take out further ATE cover for appeals and to include them in his assessable costs under the 1999 costs regime.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 23, [2017] 1 WLR 1249, [2018] 1 All ER 292, [2017] WLR(D) 223, [2017] 2 Costs LO 247, UKSC 2014/0037
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC 2017 Feeb 08 am Video
Access to Justice Act 1999 27 58 58A, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Main judgment – Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .
Cited – Masson, Templier and Co v De Fries CA 26-Feb-1910
Upon interpleader proceedings in the county court with regard to the title to goods taken in execution the claimant succeeded. The county court judge gave the judgment creditors leave to appeal to the Divisional Court upon condition that, if . .
Cited – Morris v Baron and Co HL 1918
The House drew a distinction between a variation of a contract required to be evidenced in writing, and the rescission (or discharge) of such a contract. The former was itself required to be evidenced in writing; the latter was not.
Lord . .
Cited – Wright v Bennett 1948
. .
Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Gabriel SC 17-Jun-2015
Application for directions in a pending appeal. The claimant alleged negligence against his former solicitors. After his successful claim was substantially overturned on appeal, he was made bankrupt.
Held: If the trustee adopted and pursued . .
Cited – Hawksford Trustees Jersey Ltd v Stella Global Uk Ltd and Another CA 19-Jul-2012
For the purpose of section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the costs incurred in respect of an ATE premium were recoverable only in the proceedings to which the policy related, ie as part of the costs of the trial if the policy related only to . .
Cited – Goldstein v Conley CA 4-May-2001
‘ proceedings at first instance and in this court are ordinarily treated as separate proceedings and in my judgment they support the conclusion that the costs of and incidental to one are not ordinarily treated as the costs of and incidental to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.581274
An action was brought for rescission of a contract of sale of a public house and four cottages, with a counterclaim for specific performance. The sellers, Hatt and Cox, were respectively a solicitor and his managing clerk. They were the trustees of a will trust, and were selling as such. In addition Hatt acted as solicitor for the purchaser Moody. The contract price was pounds 8,400. Moody complained that Cox had failed to disclose to him a valuation showing the property to be worth less than the contract price, and that Cox had expressly asserted that the cottages were worth pounds 225 each when he knew that they were worth less. A ‘clean hands’ issue arose from the fact that Moody had paid two sums of pounds 100 to Cox as a sweetener. Since Hatt and Cox were selling as trustees, they had a duty to their beneficiaries to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. It was argued that this modified the extent of Hatt’s duty, as a solicitor, to Moody as his client.
Held: The argument was decisively rejected. A fiduciary with two principals must take care not to find himself in a position where there is an actual conflict of duty so that he cannot fulfil his obligations to one principal without failing in his obligations to the other.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘A man may have a duty on one side and an interest on another. A solicitor who puts himself in that position takes upon himself a grievous responsibility. A solicitor may have a duty on one side and a duty on the other, namely, a duty to his client as solicitor on the one side and a duty to his beneficiaries on the other; but if he chooses to put himself in that position it does not lie in his mouth to say to the client ‘I have not discharged that which the law says is my duty towards you, my client, because I owe a duty to the beneficiaries on the other side’. The answer is that if a solicitor involves himself in that dilemma it is his own fault. He ought before putting himself in that position to inform the client of his conflicting duties, and either obtain from that client an agreement that he should not perform his full duties of disclosure or say – which would be much better – ‘I cannot accept this business.’ I think it would be the worst thing to say that a solicitor can escape from the obligations, imposed upon him as solicitor, of disclosure if he can prove that it is not a case of duty on one side and of interest on the other, but a case of duty on both sides and therefore impossible to perform.’
Scrutton LJ referred to evidence given by the defendant solicitor, Mr Cox to the effect that he, Cox, knew that the price the client, Moody, was paying for the cottages was a good deal more than the value that had been placed on the cottages for probate purposes and that he, Cox, had not told the client the amount of the probate valuation.
He continued: ‘A man who says that admits in the plainest terms that he is not fulfilling the duty which lies upon him as a solicitor acting for a client. But it is said that he could not disclose that information consistently with his duty to his other clients, the cestius que trust. It may be that a solicitor who tries to act for both parties puts himself in such a position that he must be liable to one or the other, whatever he does. The case has been put of a solicitor acting for vendor and a purchaser who knows of a flaw in the title by reason of his acting for the vendor, and who, if he discloses that flaw in the title which he knows as acting for the vendor, may be liable to an action by his vendor, and who, if he does not disclose the flaw in the title, may be liable to an action by the purchaser for not doing his duty as solicitor for him. It will be his fault for mixing himself up with a transaction in which he has two entirely inconsistent interests, and solicitors who try to act for both vendors and purchasers must appreciate that they run a very serious risk of liability to one or the other owing to the duties and obligations which such curious relation puts upon them.’
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, Scrutton LJ, Warrington LJ
[1917] 2 Ch 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood HL 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for him, where he was to contract with another client of the same solicitor in a land development. The solicitor failed to disclose that the other client had convictions for dishonesty, and . .
Distinguished – Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (a Firm) CA 22-May-2002
The firm of solicitors acted for both parties in a conveyancing transaction, in a situation when they were permitted to do so. The firm had previously acted for one party in a case where he had been convicted of a crime. The other party said the . .
Cited – Burkle Holdings Ltd v Laing TCC 23-Mar-2005
The parties had each instructed the same solicitor, but now disputed the entitlement of the other to see documents held by the solicitor. . .
Cited – Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (A Firm) ChD 20-Apr-2012
The claimant lender sought damages against the defendant solicitors alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by them in acting for them on mortgage advances. The defendants now argued that the allowance of an amendment to add the allegation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.222537
The claimant solicitors challenged a decision of the respondents to transfer legal aid orders for the representation of clients to a second frm of solicitors.
Held: The court considered the various cases, finding three decisions unlawful and one lawful. In view of the subsequent progress of the cases, however, it would not now be appropriate to alter the representation.
Beatson, Lloyd Jones JJ
[2011] EWHC 3155 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Defence Solicitors (General) (No.2) Regulations 2001 16
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Ashgar Khan 10-Jul-2001
Judge Wakerley QC expressed his concern at the numbers of applications for transfer of representation in the Crown Court. The court has a duty to bear in mind the cost to the taxpayer and that, as a result, good reason must be established before a . .
Approved – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .
Cited – Nash v Chelsea College of Art and Design QBD 11-Jul-2001
A student’s appeal against her examination marking was heard, but the reasons were only given some months later.
Held: When looking to see whether those reasons should be admitted, a court should be careful before accepting late reasons, . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.449047
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute on the appeal tribunal infringed the rule against apparent bias.
Held: In other regulatory professional bodies, members of a ruling council were precluded from sitting on disciplinary tribunals, and indeed ILEX itself had changed its own arrangements. ‘Participation in a prosecutorial capacity, even if not in the case in question, will disqualify or else raise concern in the mind of the fair-minded observer about the appearance of impartial justice. Even an employee of a prosecuting agency may fall within this disqualification or concern, even though not employed in a prosecutorial capacity, provided the employment is significant enough in length or importance or location.’ and ‘the ‘fundamental’ concern goes much wider than involvement in the allegations in the instant case on which the panel member was called to adjudicate. Nor does an underlying fair procedure make up for a perception of the real possibility of bias. Nor can one assess the play of the issues concerned by reference to confidence in a fair outcome.’
Rix, Sullivan, Black LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1168
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
Cited – P v The General Council of the Bar; Re P (A Barrister) 24-Jan-2005
(Visitors to the Inns of Court) A Disciplinary Tribunal was convened by the President of COIC pursuant to the 2000 Regulations. It found the barrister guilty of misconduct and suspended her from practice for three months. The Visitors appointed to . .
Cited – Regina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
Leave Refused – Kaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Ilex Tribunal Admn 23-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary panel. . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Cited – Sellar v Highland Railway Co (No.1) HL 24-Jan-1919
The House considered whether a judge should recuse himself in a case involving a company in which he owned shares. . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
Cited – Regina v LL CACD 2011
It came to light that at the trial of the appellant that one juror was a current employee of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in general administrative duties, another was a serving police officer in an administrative and non-operational role, . .
Cited – Sadler v The General Medical Council PC 15-Jul-2003
(The Committee on Professional Performance of the GMC) The distinction drawn in Krippendorf between a practitioner’s current competence and past performance was not to be taken too far. The purpose of the assessment was not to punish the . .
Cited – Meerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
Cited – Sadighi v General Dental Council Admn 5-May-2009
The dentist had been convicted by the Council’s professional conduct committee of dishonesty in forging the records of treatment of his patient. The committee tribunal had been chaired by Dr Leitch, who ending five years previously had served for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.445855
Thorpe, Arden, Carnwath LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 147, [2010] 5 Costs LR 703
Bailii
Solicitors Act 1974 70
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.402948
His Honour Judge Saffman sitting as a Judge of the High Court
[2020] EWHC 1948 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.653014
In an action on an attorney’s bill, non-delivery of the bill must be pleaded, or the plaintiff need not prove the delivery.
[1835] EngR 555, (1835) 1 M and Rob 462, (1835) 174 ER 159 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.316063
The 1977 Act conferred privilege on any communication involving patent attorneys made for the purpose of proceedings before the Comptroller of Patents or the Patents Appeal Tribunal. The defendants claimed privilege for all communications with their patent attorneys in relation to the manufacture of the pumps in question.
Held: At common law communications with patent attorneys are not protected by any privilege analogous to legal professional privilege
Dillon LJ said: ‘But it seems to me that it would be quite impossible for this court, in the face of that limited grant of privilege by Parliament, to hold that there exists a much wider, general privilege covering the advice of patent agents to their clients on matters of law – not even limited to matters arising under the Patents Act.’
Dillon, Waller LJJ
[1985] FSR 159
Patents Act 1977 104
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Others CA 13-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether advice given by an accountant could be protected against disclosure by legal professional privilege. The company had taken advice from its accountants, and objected to disclosure of that advice to the tax authorities . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.376221
A solicitor’s liability in negligence extends to a potential beneficiary of the will, from delay in making a will.
Gazette 16-Jun-1993, Times 09-Mar-1993, Independent 05-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – White and Another v Jones and Another HL 16-Feb-1995
Will Drafter liable in Negligence to Beneficiary
A solicitor drawing a will may be liable in negligence to a potential beneficiary, having unduly delayed in the drawing of the will. The Hedley Byrne principle was ‘founded upon an assumption of responsibility.’ Obligations may occasionally arise . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – White and Another v Jones and Another HL 16-Feb-1995
Will Drafter liable in Negligence to Beneficiary
A solicitor drawing a will may be liable in negligence to a potential beneficiary, having unduly delayed in the drawing of the will. The Hedley Byrne principle was ‘founded upon an assumption of responsibility.’ Obligations may occasionally arise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.90459
Mrs Wells, the testatrix, was an elderly lady living on her own. She neither had business experience nor the benefit of independent professional advice. She made a complex will and a codicil prepared by Mr Nye, a solicitor. He was not a close friend of Mrs Wells. Mr Nye was appointed sole executor. Mrs Wells left the bulk of her large estate to him. The only evidence of her instructions for the will was that given by Mr Nye, in whose offices the will and codicil were executed. On the death of Mrs Wells probate of the will and codicil was obtained by Mr Nye.
Lt Col Wintle, as assignee of a person entitled in the event of the intestacy of Mrs Wells, attacked the validity of the will and codicil. He did not do so by advancing a positive case, such as lack of capacity, undue influence or fraud. Instead, he put Mr Nye to proof that Mrs Wells knew and approved the contents of her will and codicil. The case was tried by Barnard J with a jury, who found in favour of the will and codicil. By a majority the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought on the ground that the judge had misdirected the jury. In the House of Lords, Lt Col Wintle appeared in person.
Held: The appeal succeeded, on the strict ground of a misdirection to the jury by the trial judge. Directions were given for the revocation of the will so far as it related to the gift of residue to the solicitor.
The court ought not to pronounce in favour of the validity of a will where the circumstances under which the will was prepared raised a well grounded suspicion that it did not express the testator’s mind. The court must be vigilant and jealous in circumstances in which a person who has prepared – or, in the vernacular, has ‘had a hand’ in the preparation of – a will under which he or she takes a benefit and seeks to admit it to probate. Viscount Simonds said: ‘It is not the law that in no circumstances can a solicitor or other person who has prepared the will for a testator take a benefit under it. But that fact creates a suspicion that must be removed by the person propounding the will. In all cases the court must be vigilant and jealous. The degree of suspicion will vary with the circumstances of the case. It may be slight and easily dispelled. It may, on the other hand, be so grave that it can hardly be removed’.
Viscount Simonds
[1959] 1 All ER 552, [1959] 1 WLR 284
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Barry v Butlin PC 8-Dec-1838
The testator, who had one son, bequeathed legacies to Percy, his attorney, one Butlin, to whom he also bequeathed the residue of his estate, and Whitehead, his butler. The will was upheld by the judge in the Prerogative Court and the son appealed. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ewing v Bennett CA 25-Feb-1998
The claimant appealed admission to probate of the will of the deceased, arguing that she had not had testamentary capacity when it was made.
Held: There was evidence of the beginnings of dementia, but at the tme when she had made the will, the . .
Cited – Thompson and others v Thompson and others FdNI 16-Feb-2003
The family sought to challenge the validity of the will, saying the testator lacked capacity, and that he had made the will under the undue influence of the beneficiaries.
Held: There was clear evidence that the testator, whilst changeable, . .
Cited – Walker v Geo H Medlicott and Son (a Firm) CA 19-Nov-1998
The claimant said that the defendant solicitor had negligently failed to include in the will a specific devise of property in his favour.
Held: A beneficiary who alleged negligent failure of a will draftsman to include a gift to him in a will . .
Cited – Boudh v Boudh and Another CA 22-Mar-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.181902
The several claimants had hired motor vehicles following accidents, being re-assured that the costs would be recovered from defendant insurers. The agreements would not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. They each envisaged short periods of hire, but with repayment rather later. The insurers argued that the term was that defined by the expected repayment period, and that they therefore were consumer credit agreements, and, since they lacked the appropriate form, they were void, and unenforceable. As unenforceable agreements, they were not obliged to pay out the drivers who had entered into the agreements. The claimants asserted that the terms were the terms of the hire itself, and that accordingly they were not subject to the Consumer Credit provisions, and were therefore valid, and the insurers could be called on to pay them.
Held: The agreements were for the actual hire period, rather than the credit term, and therefore they were valid.
Judge Charles Harris QC
[2002] Lloyds Rep IR 138
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Appeal from – Clark v Tull (T/A Ardington Electrical Services) CA 1-May-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.166179
It was submitted by the receiving parties (being 7 out of 8 defendants) that they should receive an equal portion of the total costs of the defendants by number, that is to say 7/8ths. The taxing master disagreed, permitting each defendant 7/8ths of the general costs of the action, and costs relating to their defences and such part of the fee for instructions for brief and counsel’s fees as may be attributable to their defences.
Held: The approach taken was a rule of thumb, convenient in an ordinary case. The principle contest had been between the plaintiff and the other, unsuccessful, defendant. No authority compelled the court to allow simply a share of the overall costs of the action in every class of case, even if to follow it would result in injustice. To do so would ‘be to fly in the face of the generally accepted principle as stated in Ellingsen’s case? that the successful party is to be recompensed the liability he had reasonably incurred in defending himself”
[1951] 1 Ch 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ellingsen v Det Skandinaviske Compani CA 1919
The court considered an apportionment of the legal costs as between the parties.
Held: On the authorities, each client was only liable to the solicitors for half of the costs of the joint items of defence and the whole of any separate items of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 14-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the success of a sale by a mortgagee in possession of various properties. The parties disputed the apportionment of costs.
Held: The appeal failed. Where there is no express agreement concerning the division of costs, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.261318
Solicitor appealing against striking from role – involvement in fraudulent transactions.
[2003] EWHC 408 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.184962
The respondents were a firm of solicitors who had acted for a client who carried on an unauthorised investment scheme. The Authority sought to recover losses from them.
Held: The solicitors had been concerned in the investment business, and knew of the breaches. The acts had taken place before the new Act, but the transitional provisions operated to fix with liability to restitution someone who did not themselves enter into the unauthorised transaction.
[2005] EWCA Civ 1422, Times 07-Dec-2005
Bailii
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 380(2), Financial Services Act 1986 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Securities and Investments Board v Pantell and Others (No 2) CA 24-Jun-1992
Order against solicitors in defence of Financial Services proceedings were to stand. The powers conferred by s.6(2) and 61(1) were wide and should not be cut down judicially, and the two remedies might overlap. The power found in s.61(1) had two . .
Cited – Financial Services Authority v Scandex Capital Management (a Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Denmark) and Another CA 16-Dec-1997
The court has the power to order an interim payment into court by a foreign company which was providing unauthorised investment services in UK. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.235336
A solicitor can be ordered by the court to repay sums of money to investors who innocently paid money to the solicitors client who was carrying out unlawful financial transactions with which the solicitor was concerned. One of the purposes of introducing powers to make a restitution order against someone who was ‘knowingly concerned’ in unlawful investment activity was to prevent directors from hiding behind the corporate veil of the infringing company. In particular: ‘If as is often the case, the company is not worth powder and shot, it is obviously just to enable the court, as part of the statutory remedy of quasi-rescission, to order the individual who is running that company in an unlawful manner to recoup those who have paid money to the company under an unlawful transaction.’
Browne- Wilkinson VC stated of ‘knowingly concerned’: ‘The most obvious example of a person ‘knowingly concerned’ in a contravention will be a person who is the moving light behind a company which is carrying on investment business in an unlawful manner. Professor Gower in his report, which was the basis on which the Act was introduced, specifically pointed out the mischief of directors hiding behind the corporate veil of companies… If, as is often the case, the company is not worth powder and shot, it is obviously just to enable the Court, as part of the statutory remedy of quasi-rescission, to order the individual who is running that company in an unlawful manner to recoup those who have paid money to the company under an unlawful transaction.’
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson VC
Financial Times 9 August 1991
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Securities and Investments Board v Pantell and Others (No 2) CA 24-Jun-1992
Order against solicitors in defence of Financial Services proceedings were to stand. The powers conferred by s.6(2) and 61(1) were wide and should not be cut down judicially, and the two remedies might overlap. The power found in s.61(1) had two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.653243
[2021] EWHC 2271 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.666525
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until 1996, when the findings were produced. He was found guilty of professional misconduct. His appeal failed. He now appealed saying again that the misconduct if any was not professional misconduct and that the delay was unreasonable, and that the Court of Appeal had applied the wrong civil standard of proof.
Held: The criminal standard of proof is the correct standard to be applied in all disciplinary proceedings concerning the legal profession. That is the standard which had been applied both by the disciplinary committee and by the Court of Appeal. The evidence established the offence to either standard. The only injustice caused by the deplorable delay was the failure to repay the money to the estate of the deceased. Unlike in Goose the committee had full transcripts of the evidence, and therefore the quality of the decision was not undermined by the delay. The appeal failed.
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Sir Swinton Thomas
[2005] UKPC 19, [2005] 3 All ER 1116
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bhandari v Advocates Committee PC 1956
Complaints of professional misconduct against a member of a legal profession are to be proved to the criminal standard. Lord Tucker said: ‘With regard to the onus of proof the Court of Appeal [for East Africa] said: ‘We agree that in every . .
Cited – In Re A Solicitor QBD 13-May-1992
In disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, allegations must be proved to the criminal standard, and certainly so where the allegations are serious and may result in suspension or disqualification. Hearsay evidence . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary QBD 5-Apr-2000
The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section . .
Cited – Gough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire CA 20-Mar-2002
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were . .
Cited – Aaron v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged an order suspending him from practice as a solicitor for two years. He had previous findings of professional misconduct in failing to pay counsels’ fees. In the course of later disciplinary proceedings he was found to have . .
Cited – Goose v Wilson Sandford and Co and Mainon CA 13-Feb-1998
A judge was properly criticised for failing to write up a judgment when the witness’ evidence was still fresh in his mind. A two year delay required a re-trial.
Peter Gibson LJ explained the potential effect of delay on the formulation and . .
Cited – Boodhoo, Jagram, (suing on behalf of themselves and the Sanatan Dharma Sudhar Sadha) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1-Apr-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The complainant said that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the court’s delay. Proceedings had begun in 1987 for redress with regard to a land dispute. There was substantial . .
Cited by:
Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA 21-Dec-2005
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release.
Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . .
Cited – In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
Cited – Harris v The Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 28-Jun-2011
The solicitor appealed against findings and orders regarding allegations of having failed to disclose to clients referral fees paid by him to third parties, and of having given misleading fees information.
Held: The appellant had admitted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.224734
Challenge to striking off.
[2004] EWHC 1454 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.198524
Mr Justice Zacaroli
[2021] EWHC 1826 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.663850
Girvan J
[1999] NI 68, [1998] NICh 7
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Myers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.202013
[1835] EngR 898, (1835) 3 My and K 572, (1835) 40 ER 218
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.316406
Wasted costs order – Whether judge having power to require attendance of legal representative
Saini J
[2021] 1 WLR 3261
Senior Courts Act 1981
England and Wales
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.666488
[1837] EngR 674, (1837) 8 Sim 397, (1837) 59 ER 158
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.313791
The claimant sought disclosure of papers prepared on behalf of the defendant by a claims consultant, who in turn asserted a privilege from production akin to that of a legal professional.
Akenhead J
[2012] EWHC 649 (TCC), 141 ConLR 102, [2012] BLR 249, [2012] 6 Costs LO 809
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.452425
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Principle of equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 / EC – Article 6, paragraph 1 – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 21 – Prohibition of any discrimination based on age – National regulations setting an age limit of 50 years for access to the profession of notary – Justification
C-914/19, [2021] EUECJ C-914/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:430
Bailii
European
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.664316
The court dealt with a complaint as to a solicitor’s alleged failings to meet professional and ethical standards required of those conducting proceedings on behalf of clients in immigration and asylum cases.
Sharp LJ, Green J
[2018] EWHC 913 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 257, [2018] 3 All ER 79, [2018] 4 WLR 89
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gubarev and Another v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd and Another QBD 6-Aug-2020
Wrongful Transmission of Distanced Hearing
In a defamation case, the solicitors representing one party had live streamed a video of a defamation trial to several individuals outside the jurisdiction without the Court’s permission. The trial took place during the Coronavirus pandemic, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.614968
The appellant solicitor acted in a land transaction. The land was mortgaged to the respondent bank. She wrote to the bank stating her client’s intention to repay the whole loan. The letter was negligently mistaken and the bankers allowed the discharge of the property without repayment of the loan. The appellant denied having a duty of care to the bank, and appealed against a finding that she did.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The concept in negligence of assumption of responsibility remains the foundation of liability for a careless misrepresentation, though the concept may sometimes require cautious incremental development if it is to fit cases to which it does not readily apply. The appellant expected properly, that the bank would make its own checks of what she said before releasing the forms of discharge.
A solicitor will not normally assume responsibility towards the opposite party unless it was reasonable for the latter to have relied on what the solicitor said, and unless the solicitor should reasonably have foreseen that the opposite party would actually rely on the statement. The two ingredients of reasonable reliance and foreseeability have particular relevance in a claim against a solicitor by the opposing party, because it is generally inappropriate for a solicitor to assume such a responsibility towards the other side.
Orse: NRAM Ltd (formerly NRAM plc) v Steel
Lady Hale, President, Lord Wilson,Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 13, [2018] 3 All ER 81, [2018] 1 WLR 1190, 2019 SCLR 379, [2018] WLR(D) 124, 2018 GWD 24-311, [2018] PNLR 21, 2018 SLT 835, UKSC 2016/0111
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 Nov 07 am Video, SC 2017 Nov 07 pm Video
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Cited – Smith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc HL 20-Apr-1989
In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
At Inner House – NRAM Plc v Jane Steel and Bell and Another SCS 19-Feb-2016
(Extra Division, Inner House) The bank had relied upon mistaken statements by the solicitor acting for a client as to the intention to repay its debts. Without checking, the bank issued the documents to release their security. It now appealed from . .
Cited – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson and Co CA 31-Jul-1990
When considering the liability of an auditor in negligence, the fact and nature of any communications direct between the auditor and the potential investor must be allowed for. The court set out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into . .
Cited – Ross v Caunters (a firm) ChD 1979
The court upheld a finding of negligence against a firm of solicitors for failing to ensure the correct attestation of a will, and also the award of damages in favour of a disappointed beneficiary.
A solicitor owes a duty of care to the party . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .
Cited – Allied Finance and Investments Ltd v Haddow and Co 1983
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The claimant had agreed to make a loan to X and to take security for it on a yacht. The defendants, who were X’s solicitors, certified to the claimant that the instrument of security executed by X in relation to the . .
Cited – Midland Bank Plc v Cameron, Thom, Peterkin and Duncans SCS 1988
(Outer House) The pursuer had made a loan to X in assumed reliance on a statement by the defenders, who were X’s solicitors, about the extent of his assets. The statement was materially inaccurate. But the pursuer’s claim against the defenders . .
Cited – Al-Kandari v J R Brown and Co CA 1988
A solicitor had undertaken to look after certain passports, but failed to do so. The husband had twice previously kidnapped his children whose custody was an issue before the court. Once the husband regained the passports, he again fled with the . .
Cited – Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
Cited – Dean v Allin and Watts (a Firm) CA 23-May-2001
An unsophisticated lender running the business of a car mechanic wanted to lend money to borrowers on the security of real property owned by an associate of the borrowers. The borrowers instructed the defendant solicitors to give effect to this . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – Connell v Odlum 1993
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Prior to his marriage to W, the claimant wished to enter with her into an agreement of which the statutory effect would be to contract them out of the law’s general provisions for the making of financial adjustments . .
Cited – Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd ChD 1992
The claimant wished to purchase an underlease from the first defendant. The claimant’s solicitors inquired of the second defendants, a firm of solicitors acting for the first defendant, whether any provisions in the headlease might affect the length . .
Cited by:
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .
Cited – Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others SC 26-Jul-2018
The Playboy casino required a reference for a customer, but asked for this through a third party. The bank was not aware of the agency but gave a good reference for a customer who had never deposited any money with them and nor to whom it had issued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.605621
Two appeals concerning the question whether claims brought against a firm of solicitors should be aggregated for the purposes of the limit of indemnity in the firm’s professional indemnity insurance.
Lord Justice Nugee
[2021] EWCA Civ 1211
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666514
Beatson J
[2008] EWHC 843 (Comm), [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 643
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd CA 6-Apr-2009
‘In the present case the binder gives Temple certain valuable rights, including a right in Section 27.1 to ‘retain’ commission out of premiums, but they do not include any rights of a security or proprietary nature to which the authority can be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.267064
Sir John Thomas P said: ‘The court . . intends to take the most vigorous action against any legal representatives who fail to comply with its rules. If people persist in failing to follow the procedural requirements, they must realise that this court will not hesitate to refer those concerned to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
That is a warning for the future. We hope it will be unnecessary to have to have any further hearings of this kind or to refer anyone to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but we will not hesitate to do so where there is a failure to comply with the court’s requirements.’
Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gubarev and Another v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd and Another QBD 6-Aug-2020
Wrongful Transmission of Distanced Hearing
In a defamation case, the solicitors representing one party had live streamed a video of a defamation trial to several individuals outside the jurisdiction without the Court’s permission. The trial took place during the Coronavirus pandemic, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.465835
The claimant firm of solicitors worked to provide legal assistance through the Legal Aid scheme organised by the first defendants under a general civil contract. They sought to claim for damages for what was said to be an unlawful interference in their practice.
Held: The relationship was governed by the contract, and that contract provided for such disputes to be resolved by arbitration. All claims were to be stayed pending the result of that arbitration, and the arbitrator was not confined to considering the parties casues of action.
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
[2004] EWHC 1803 (Ch), Times 05-Aug-2004
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Aaronson and others QBD 24-May-2006
The Commission sought to enforce an order requiring the defendant solicitors firm to produce to it all files on which bills had not yet been submitted. The defendant said that the request was in breach of an arbitration agreement. The commission . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.199485
An undertaking had been given by the defendant solicitor to retain a sum of pounds 18,000 in his hands or to the credit of his client, a Mr Watts, until various matters had been sorted out. In breach of that undertaking, the solicitor subsequently paid the pounds 18,000 over to Mr Watts and Mr Watts subsequently went bankrupt. That was the position at the date when the enforcement of the undertaking came before the court.
Held: It was no longer possible in any meaningful sense to require the defendant to honour the undertaking, because the result of doing that would only be to make the sum of pounds 18,000 available to Mr Watts’ trustee in bankruptcy. It would not in itself achieve payment of any sum to the claimant, who at no stage had more than the security offered by the undertaking to retain the pounds 18,000 until matters had been sorted out. There had never been an unconditional undertaking to pay pounds 18,000 to the claimant. It was not possible to enforce the undertaking in its original form and instead the appropriate course was to direct an inquiry as to what loss, if any, the claimant had suffered by reason of the breach of the undertaking.
[1988] QB 925 (Note)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Udall v Capri Lighting Ltd (in liquidation) CA 1987
A claim was made for the price of goods sold and delivered. The defendant’s solicitor gave an oral undertaking to his counterpart to procure the execution by directors of his client company of charges over their homes in return for an adjournment . .
Cited – Clark and Another v Lucas Solicitors Llp ChD 31-Jul-2009
The claimants sought an order (by summary judgment) against the defendant firm of solicitors to require them to perform an undertaking they had given to provide evidence of the discharge of a mortgage. The defendants said the proper remedy was by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.452354
Moore-Bick J provided the following example: ‘Although in many cases a relationship between two parties which supports common interest privilege will be one which also gives each of them a right to obtain disclosure of confidential documents relating to the matter in which they are both interested, one can readily think of situations in which that would not be so. Take the example given by Donaldson LJ in Buttes v Hammer (No 3) of tenants in a block of flats. One tenant, acting entirely for his own benefit, obtains legal advice concerning a dispute with the landlord over a provision in the lease which affects other tenants in a similar way. If he chooses to give a copy of the document containing that advice in confidence to another tenant who is willing to cooperate with him in pursuing a claim their common interest would be sufficient for the document to remain privileged in the latter’s hands. I do not, however, see any basis upon which the second tenant could have insisted on seeing the advice if the first tenant did not wish to show it to him, even though they had a common interest in the subject matter. Both as a matter of principle and authority . . it is not enough that the person seeking disclosure of confidential documents can show that he has an interest in the subject matter which would be sufficient to give rise to common interest privilege if the documents had been disclosed to him; he must be able to establish a right to obtain access to them by reason of a common interest in their subject matter which existed at the time the advice was sought or the documents were obtained.’
Moore-Bick J
[1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 640
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.666495
The claimant appealed against a finding on its claim for professional negligence against its former solicitors in the conduct of a claim against it.
[1999] EWCA Civ 1896
England and Wales
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.146811
Upon an acknowledgment of a conveyance by a married woman, taken in a township in Pennsylvania, the court, in lieu of a notarial certificate, received a certificate of an officer describing himself as ‘ the prothonotary and clerk of the court of Common Pleas in and for Centre County, Pennsylvania,’ it being sworn that there was no notary public within eighty miles of the place.
[1844] EngR 197 (A), (1844) 6 Man and G 1046
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.304789
Where an action is brought against a solicitor who defends it in person and obtains judgment, he is entitled upon taxation to the same costs as if he had employed a solicitor, except in respect of items which the fact of his acting directly renders unnecessary.
Judgment of the Queen’s Bench Division (12 Q. B. D. 452) affirmed.
Bowen LJ said: ‘only legal costs which the Court can measure are to be allowed, and that such legal costs are to be treated as expenses necessarily arising from the litigation and necessarily caused by the course which it takes. Professional skill and labour are recognised and can be measured by the law; private expenditure of labour and trouble by a layman cannot be measured. It depends on the zeal, the assiduity, or the nervousness of the individual.’
Bowen LJ
(1884) 13 QBD 872, [1884] UKLawRpKQB 115
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Malkinson v Trim CA 20-Sep-2002
The solicitor had successfully defended proceedings brought against him personally, but employing his own firm to represent him. He sought his costs. The claimant disputed his right to costs.
Held: The claimant had served a notice of . .
Cited – Khan v Lord Chancellor QBD 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a barrister. He had been tried and acquitted of criminal charges, and had been awarded cost from central funds. He appealed from a refusal of a claim for payment for the time he spent in preparation.
Held: The applicant was . .
Cited – Boyd and Hutchinson v Joseph ChD 14-Mar-2003
The claimant had been awarded costs, and sought to charge her time as a solicitor.
Held: The claimant had only a limited practicing certificate, which would allow her to work for others only without charge. She could not for these proceedings . .
Cited – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others 28-Oct-2005
The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences.
Held: As professionals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.180907
(Hong Kong) The defendant’s solicitors completed a mortgage in ‘Hong Kong style’ rather than in the old fashioned English style. Completion in Hong Kong style provides for money to be paid over against an undertaking by the solicitors for the borrowers subsequently to hand over the executed documents. This allowed a dishonest solicitor for the borrower to abscond with an advance without providing the documents.
Held: Even though completion in Hong Kong style was almost universally adopted in Hong Kong and was in accordance with a body of professional opinion there, the defendant’s solicitors were liable for negligence because there was an obvious risk which could have been guarded against. Thus, the body of professional opinion, though almost universally held, was not reasonable or responsible. In medical negligence, in cases of diagnosis and treatment there are cases where, despite a body of professional opinion sanctioning the defendant’s conduct, the defendant can properly be held liable for negligence. Nevertheless, it will very seldom be right for a judge to reach the conclusion that views generally held by a competent medical expert are unreasonable.
Diplock, Elwyn-Jones, Roskill, Brandon of Oakbrook, Brightman LL
(1983) 80 LSG 3163, [1984] 2 WLR 1, [1983-84] ANZ Conv R 640, [1984] AC 296, [1983] UKPC 32
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Patel and Another v Daybells (a Firm) CA 27-Jul-2001
Land was purchased and a resale negotiated before it was registered. An undertaking was accepted that the seller’s solicitor would discharge all charges. The purchasers sought to avoid completion by saying the Act required them to be registered . .
Cited – Calver v Westwood Veterinary Group CA 24-Nov-2000
The defendants appealed a finding of professional negligence in their handing of a case in which a mare had miscarried. It was claimed that he had failed to spot a retained placenta. The laminitis she then suffered (found caused by negligence) led . .
Cited – Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiff suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of cardiac arrest induced by respiratory failure as a child whilst at the defendant hospital. A doctor was summoned but failed to attend, and the child suffered cardiac arrest and brain . .
Cited – Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Markandan and Uddin (A Firm) ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant firm of solicitors had failed to deal properly with a conveyance having paid across the mortgage funds to a non-existent firm of solicitors and without obtaining the appropriate documents at all. . .
Cited – Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
cook_mbpCA2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
Cited – Thwaytes v Sotheby’s ChD 16-Jan-2015
The claimant had sold a painting through the defendant auctioneers. He sought damages after it was certified to be an original rather than copy Caravaggio painting, and worth very substantially more. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.183812
The claimants sought an order (by summary judgment) against the defendant firm of solicitors to require them to perform an undertaking they had given to provide evidence of the discharge of a mortgage. The defendants said the proper remedy was by an inquiry as to the claimants’ losses.
Held: It was not the position here that the undertaking was impossible of performance. The application was dismissed subject to the defendant being given a further short time to attempt further negotiation with the bank.
Sarah Asplin QC
[2009] EWHC 1952 (Ch), [2009] 46 EG 144, [2010] PNLR 2, [2009] 32 EG 69
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – United Mining and Finance Corporation Ltd v Becher 1910
Becher (a solicitor) received andpound;2,000 from a party with whom his Russian client was negotiating, on his undertaking that, if the negotiations were unsuccessful, he would pay it back. The negotiations were unsuccessful, but Becher would not . .
Cited – In re a Solicitor 1966
The solicitor had given an undertaking to hold five leases to the order of a bank. They were not in his possession and one was subject to a prior mortgage. Complaint was made to oblige him to comply with his undertaking.
Held: In the absence . .
Cited – Wroth v Tyler ChD 1973
The plaintiff had contracted to purchase a house for 6,000 pounds but the defendant failed to complete. Damages were awarded in lieu of specific performance under a Lord Cairns’ Act provision. At the date of the repudiatory breach the value of the . .
Cited – John Fox v Bannister, King v Rigbeys CA 1988
An undertaking had been given by the defendant solicitor to retain a sum of andpound;18,000 in his hands or to the credit of his client, a Mr Watts, until various matters had been sorted out. In breach of that undertaking, the solicitor subsequently . .
Cited – Angel Solicitors v Jenkins O’Dowd and Barth ChD 19-Jan-2009
Actions were brought to enforce undertakings given by solicitors to redeem mortgages on the sale of properties, and as to redemption figures provided by lenders who then refused to release the properties. The solicitors had replied to standard form . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.401878
Appeal – The Court of Session having refused to put Mr. Haldane, (who had obtained the king’s letter of appointment, as an Ordinary Lord of Session,) upon trial for what the Court deemed want of due service, as an advocate, an appeal lay from the determination of the Court.
College of Justice – Mr. Haldane, who had been a member of the faculty of advocates for seven years, but who by being a member of parliament, and a commissioner for the forfeited estates, during great part of that time, did not then attend in the College of Justice, was nevertheless qualified to be a Lord of Session.
[1723] UKHL Robertson – 422, (1723) Robertson 422
Bailii
Scotland
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.553799
(1) Does the court have inherent jurisdiction to supervise the conduct of an authorised body through which a solicitor practises?
(2) Can the court’s inherent supervisory jurisdiction in respect of a solicitor be engaged if a solicitor gives an undertaking on behalf of an authorised body through which he or she practises and fails to ensure that the undertaking is performed?
(3) If an undertaking given by a solicitor or authorised body restrains its trade, is its construction, validity and enforcement under the court’s inherent jurisdiction to be determined in accordance with contractual principles?
(4) Where an undertaking given by a solicitor is alleged to be contrary to public policy under the doctrine of restraint of trade, is the fact that it is a solicitor’s undertaking relevant to the question whether is enforcement in contract is contrary to public policy?
(5) Is the undertaking given by Mr Parker on behalf of HHSLLP unenforceable on the ground of public policy under the doctrine of restraint of trade?
Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows
[2021] UKSC 32
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.666155
The claimants had been clients of the defendant solicitors former firmer. A partner of the defendants had stolen large sums of money in the names of the claimants from the firm’s client account. The defendants themselves were not said to have been in any way party to the thefts. Some thefts predated the claim by more than six years and the defendants sought to rely on limitation law as a defence.
Held: The partners, though innocent could not rely on limitation as requested.
His Honour Judge Saffman
[2020] EWHC 2809 (Ch)
Bailii
Partnership Act 1890
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Moore v Knight ChD 18-Dec-1890
The court considered the liability of partners in a solicitors’ firm for embezzlement of client money by an employee of the firm. Once the true position became known, after many years, the client sued the surviving partners, who relied on . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.655613
A first mortgagee, Heard, had sold property under the power of sale and had retained a solicitor, Searle, to act in relation to the sale. Searle received the proceeds of sale, satisfied the first mortgage debt, but retained the balance, falsely representing to the first mortgagee that he had the authority of the second mortgagee, Thorne, to receive the balance. He paid interest to Thorne as if Thorne’s mortgage was still subsisting, thereby concealing his theft of the money. The truth came out when Searle became bankrupt. Thorne then sued Heard for the balance of the proceeds, asserting that Heard had acted in breach of trust in allowing Searle to retain the proceeds. That was a breach of trust, but it was innocent, not fraudulent, and had occurred much more than six years before the start of the proceedings. Accordingly Thorne relied on section 8(1), claiming that Heard was liable for the fraud of Searle, he having been Heard’s agent, and claiming that accordingly Heard was party or privy to Searle’s fraud as principal.
Lindley LJ asked when the right of action accrued. He said that the fraud first occurred when Searle misappropriated the money, and it was concealed by Searle continuing to pay Thorne the interest that would have been due to him. He held that the fraud and its concealment could not be treated as perpetrated or concealed by Heard. He distinguished both Blair v Bromley and Moore v Knight, where the fraud and its concealment, though committed by one partner (or, in Moore v Knight, by an employee), was imputable to the firm, so that the firm was held to have concealed the fraud, even though not guilty of it in the first place (p.604). He noted that the 1888 Act had not affected the principles on which the time when a cause of action accrues is to be determined. Accordingly, he held that the right of action accrued more than six years before the start of the proceedings, and he went on to consider the section.
On this he said: ‘Counsel for the Appellant contended that the facts of this case brought it within the first exception; but I am clearly of opinion that they do not. It is only by a misuse of language that a person who in fact knows absolutely nothing of the fraudulent conduct of another, and who in no way benefits by it or ratifies it, can be said to be party or privy to it. One person may be, and often is, liable in law for frauds which he has not committed; but to say that he is party or privy to them is quite another matter, and is only true when he has personally in some way participated in them. The Defendants were, in my judgment, in no sense whatever either fraudulent themselves or parties or privies to the fraud of Searle.’
Kay LJ dealt with the argument under the section first, on which he said this: ‘Of course the Defendants are liable unless the statute to which I have referred protects them. It has been argued that they were party or privy to Searle’s fraud. Even if it could be said that they were liable for his fraud, it is another thing to say that they were party or privy to it. I think that those words in the statute indicate moral complicity, which is not suggested in this case.’
Lindley LJ, Kay LJ
[1894] UKLawRpCh 12, (1894) 1 Ch 599
Commonlii
Trustee Act 1888 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Moore v Knight ChD 18-Dec-1890
The court considered the liability of partners in a solicitors’ firm for embezzlement of client money by an employee of the firm. Once the true position became known, after many years, the client sued the surviving partners, who relied on . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Thorne v Heard HL 1895
Recovery was sought from the partners of a defaulting solicitor.
Lord Herschell LC disposed of the argument about concealment first, and then turned to section 8, saying: ‘My Lords, the only remaining question is, Did the statute apply? It is . .
Cited – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.666143
The court considered the liability of partners in a solicitors’ firm for embezzlement of client money by an employee of the firm. Once the true position became known, after many years, the client sued the surviving partners, who relied on limitation, and in particular section 8. Stirling J noted that the second exception in the section might well apply, since the money had been received by the members of the firm and converted to the use of the firm, but he did not decide the case on that footing. Instead he based his decision on the concealment of the fraud, following Blair v Bromley (1847) 2 Ph 354. Interest had been paid to the client all along as if the fund had been invested as it should have been. That payment of interest was the act of the partnership, so that the partners were all affected by the implicit representation that the funds had been invested as they should have been, thereby concealing the fraud, even though they were innocent of the fraud. It was not argued that the first exception to section 8 applied, and this is therefore of no assistance on the application of the phrase ‘party or privy’.
Sterling J said: ‘Money came into the hands of the firm of Messrs Bromley without fraud and that one of the firm afterwards committed a fraud in respect of it, but made misrepresentations (some of which were attributable to the firm) which prevented the fraud from being discovered until the period fixed by the Statute of Limitations had expired. It was held that the innocent partner was deprived of the benefit of the statute by those representations which bound him as a partner. The decision rests on principles of the law relating to representation and to partnership, not on those which relate to trusts.’
Sterling J
(1891) 1 Ch 547, [1890] UKLawRpCh 172
Commonlii
Trustee Act 1888 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Thorne v Heard CA 24-Jan-1894
A first mortgagee, Heard, had sold property under the power of sale and had retained a solicitor, Searle, to act in relation to the sale. Searle received the proceeds of sale, satisfied the first mortgage debt, but retained the balance, falsely . .
Cited – Lord Bishop of Leeds v Dixon Coles and Gill (A Firm) and Others ChD 28-Oct-2020
The claimants had been clients of the defendant solicitors former firmer. A partner of the defendants had stolen large sums of money in the names of the claimants from the firm’s client account. The defendants themselves were not said to have been . .
Cited – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.666142
Two solicitors having entered into partnership, each of them continued to attend to the business of his former clients, but on the partnership account; and one of the partners having proposed to invest a sum of money belonging to a client in a certain mortgage, the proposal was agreed to by the client, and the money was paid to the joint account of the partnership, at their bankers, for the purpose of the investment. The negotiations for the mortgage were broken off by the proposed mortgagor, but the partner by whom the proposal had been made to the client untruly represented to the client that the mortgage had been effected, and thenceforward continued to pay the interest as if it had actually been done. Although the banking account was kept in the name of the firm, the monies standing to the account belonged exclusively to the partner who committed the fraud ; he alone attended to and had the control of the account, and the fraud was unknown to the other partner. Five years after the receipt of the money from the client the partnership was dissolved ; and ten years after the dissolution of the partnership, the partner who had committed the fraud became bankrupt, and the client, who, from the time of the dissolution until the bankruptcy, had continued to employ him as his solicitor, discovered the fraud. The client then filed his bill against the other partner to recover the money.
Held, that the defendant was originally liable to the Plaintiff for the money received by the firm ; that his original liability was continued, as well after as before the dissolution of the partnership, by the fraudulent representations of his former partner; and that in equity the limitation in bar of the claim did not begin to run in favour of the Defendant until the time when the client discovered the fraud.
That the fraud and misrepresentation of one of the partners entitled the client to relief in equity against the other, not only if the case was one in which the client might have recovered in an action at Law against such other partner, but also if the remedy at law against the other partner was barred by the lapse of time.
Sir James Wigram VC
[1846] EngR 1082, (1846) 5 Hare 542, (1846) 67 ER 1026
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Blair v Bromley CA 3-Jul-1847
Held; . .
Cited – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.302977
One partner in a firm of solicitors committed a fraud on a client by using deeds held on behalf of the client as security for a loan for his own benefit, the funds, so far as appeared, not passing through the firm’s accounts. The fraudulent partner eventually absconded and the client sued the remaining partners.
Held: They were not liable. The transaction was not within the ordinary course of the business of the partnership and was ‘not imputable to the partnership’.
North J
(1886) 55 LJ Ch 481
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.666145
Held;
Cottenham LC
[1847] EngR 684, (1847) 2 Ph 354, (1847) 41 ER 979
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Blair v Bromley ChD 18-Nov-1846
Two solicitors having entered into partnership, each of them continued to attend to the business of his former clients, but on the partnership account; and one of the partners having proposed to invest a sum of money belonging to a client in a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another CA 20-Jul-2021
Innocent co-trustee not liable for Default
Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.301300
The solicitor appealed against findings and orders regarding allegations of having failed to disclose to clients referral fees paid by him to third parties, and of having given misleading fees information.
Held: The appellant had admitted eight breaches, including two of mandatory obligations. Despite his long career and good record the two year suspension was necessary.
Pitchford LJ, Supperstone J
[2011] EWHC 2173 (Admin)
Bailii
Solicitors Act 1974, Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code 1990, Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 2.03, Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 32
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re A Solicitor QBD 13-May-1992
In disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, allegations must be proved to the criminal standard, and certainly so where the allegations are serious and may result in suspension or disqualification. Hearsay evidence . .
Cited – Levy v Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 25-Mar-2011
The solicitor appealed against an order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Held: Cranston J summarised the legal principles that apply on an appeal under section 49 of the 1974 Act: ‘An appeal lies to this court from the Solicitors . .
Cited – Law Society v Salsbury CA 25-Nov-2008
The Society appealed against an order quashing the striking-off of the solicitor.
Held: Bolton was still the leading case though the solicitor must be given an opportunity for a fair trial. Though it was not necessary to show a very strong . .
Cited – Campbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander) PC 25-Apr-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.443272
The claimant said that her several complaints to the Law Society about her former solicitor had been negligently handled.
Held: There is no general duty of care owed to clients, or opponents, of solicitors on the part of the Law Society, as to the manner in which they exercise their duties and discretions under the Solicitor’s Act.
Otton J
Independent 29-Jul-1993, Times 30-Jul-1993
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wood v Law Society CA 1-Mar-1995
The solicitor had acted for the client in a series of loans, and had not disclosed his own directorship in one or more of the companies. His firm later acted for the lender in recovering possession form their former client. The claimant made several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.90587
[2018] ScotCS CSIH – 45
Bailii
Scotland
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.622423
Solicitor appeal from suspension from practice
[2003] EWHC 2189 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.186698
[2003] EWHC 2757 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.188508
[1831] EngR 95, (1831) 1 Cr and J 415, (1831) 148 ER 1484
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.319973
Ian Karet (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
[2021] EWHC 1863 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.663858
Lord Romilly MR said: ‘I think it of great importance to preserve the lien of solicitors. That is the real security for solicitors engaged in business. It is also beneficial to the suitors. It would frequently happen, but for the lien which solicitors have upon papers and deeds, that a client who is not able to advance money to enable them to carry on business would be deprived of justice, through inability to prosecute his claims in the suit.’
Lord Romilly MR
[1866] EngR 160 (B), (1866) 35 Beav 526
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.280871
Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded conditional fee agreements, thereby depriving Edmondson of its costs. Haven submitted that the particular terms of the CFA Lite retainers created no contractual liability of the claimants for the charges, and there was nothing upon which an equitable security could be founded. Held The Court agreed that there was no such contractual liability, but it decided that the equitable jurisdiction to intervene could be extended far enough to enable the court to recognise and then enforce an interest of Edmondson under the RTA Protocol in receiving its fixed costs and charges as therein provided or, alternatively, an interest under an express provision in the retainers to sue in its client’s names for recovery of those charges from Haven, and that Haven knew of those interests. The Court ordered Haven to pay the charges allowable under the RTA Protocol to Edmondson, in addition to the settlement sums already paid to the claimants.
Laws, Elias, Lloyd-Jones LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1230, [2015] RTR 125, [2015] RTR 125, [2016] CP Rep 11, [2015] WLR(D) 496, [2016] 1 WLR 1385
Bailii, WLRD
The Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumers Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Khans Solicitor (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and Another CA 8-May-2013
C instructed the claimants to bring proceedings. They compromised those proceedings, the defendant agreeing to pay C’s costs. A bill was submitted but before it was paid C withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and accepted the defendant’s . .
Cited – In re the Estate of Fuld, decd (No. 4) 1968
The solicitor sought to exercise a lien for his costs over money paid direct to his client.
Held: The solicitor’s right exists over both the amount of a judgment in favour of the client, and the amount of an order for costs in favour of the . .
Cited – Welsh v Hole 6-Nov-1779
The plaintiff obtained judgment for pounds 20 and costs in a civil claim for assault, but then compromised the claim for a direct payment by the defendant of pounds 10. There was no collusion to defeat the solicitor’s right to payment of his bill. . .
Cited – Read v Dupper 13-Jun-1795
The defendant’s solicitor paid the plaintiff direct, after notice of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s interest, and had to pay again. Lord Kenyon began:
‘The principle by which this application is to be decided was settled long ago, namely that the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.556265
C instructed the claimants to bring proceedings. They compromised those proceedings, the defendant agreeing to pay C’s costs. A bill was submitted but before it was paid C withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and accepted the defendant’s offer of andpound;6,000 in settlement of his costs, requiring that the money be paid directly to him. His solicitors had written to the defendant stating that they believed that C was attempting to avoid payment of costs properly due to them and putting the defendant on notice of their claim. The money was nevertheless paid directly to C who then disappeared. The solicitors issued proceedings under CPR Part 8, claiming a declaration that the compromise was not valid and either a charge or a lien upon the unpaid and as yet unassessed costs.
Held: The compromise was valid but that since the defendant had been on notice as to the costs due to the solicitors when it paid C, that payment was not a good discharge of the solicitors’ claim and must be paid again.
The court may intervene to protect a claim by a solicitor on funds recovered by a client where (a) the paying party appeared to have colluding with the client to cheat the solicitor of his fees, or (b) the paying party was on notice that the other party’s solicitor had a claim on the funds for outstanding fees.
Rix, Ryder, Sedley LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 481, [2013] WLR(D) 167, [2013] 4 All ER 367, [2013] PNLR 29, [2013] 4 Costs LR 564, [2014] 1 WLR 1185
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe and Another SCCO 17-Feb-2012
. .
See Also – Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe and Another QBD 24-Jul-2012
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd CA 2-Dec-2015
Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded . .
Approved – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.503465
The solicitor sought to exercise a lien for his costs over money paid direct to his client.
Held: The solicitor’s right exists over both the amount of a judgment in favour of the client, and the amount of an order for costs in favour of the client.
The solicitor need not be still acting for the client at the time that the money was recovered. The right of the solicitor is one which the solicitor can enforce against the client, entitling the solicitor to an injunction to prevent the payment of the fund to the client without notice to the solicitor until such time as the quantum of the solicitor’s entitlement to be paid from the fund is ascertained: ‘It might, however, be argued that there is no fund in sight before taxation has determined the amount of it. . . Is it to be suggested, merely because the client has not ascertained the amount of the fund by agreement or taxation, that there is no fund? If this were the law, the client would indeed be able to deprive the solicitor of his lien, which, as was emphasised in Ex parte Bryant, it is the policy of the law to protect’.
The lien is seen as a valuable right and one which is ‘the policy of the law to protect’, but Scarman J said: ‘The duty of a Court is to intervene only if it be necessary for the solicitor’s protection, and then only to the extent necessary to safeguard his lien.’
Scarman J
[1968] P 727
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – In the Estate of Fuld, decd (No 3) ChD 1967
The deceased had spent relatively equal periods in two or more countries. The parties disputed his domicile.
Held: A blind adherence to foreign law can not be always expected of an English Court. The legal relationship between a person and the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd CA 2-Dec-2015
Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded . .
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.556269
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a judge-made remedy, motivated not by any fondness for solicitors as fellow lawyers or even as officers of the court, but rather because it promotes access to justice. Specifically it enables solicitors to offer litigation services on credit to clients who, although they have a meritorious case, lack the financial resources to pay up front for its pursuit. It is called a solicitor’s lien because solicitors used to have a virtual monopoly on the pursuit of litigation in the higher courts. The solicitors had taken on personal injury claimants on a conditional fee basis. The appellant insurance company had settled the claims directly with the clients, depriving the solicitors of their costs.
Held: Appeal dismissed (though on differing grounds)
‘ the equity depends upon the solicitor having a claim for his charges against the client, that there must be something in the nature of a fund against which equity can recognise that his claim extends (which is usually a debt owed by the defendant to the solicitor’s client which owes its existence, at least in part, to the solicitor’s services to the client) and that for equity to intervene there must be something sufficiently affecting the conscience of the payer, either in the form of collusion to cheat the solicitor or notice (or, I would add knowledge) of the solicitor’s claim against, or interest in, the fund.’
Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 21, [2018] RTR 22, [2018] 2 Costs LR 347, [2018] PNLR 24, [2018] 3 All ER 273, [2018] 1 WLR 2052, [2018] WLR(D) 241
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, Supreme Court, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 0205 am video, SC 2018 0205 pm video, SC 20180202 am Video, SC 2018 02 06 pm video
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd CA 2-Dec-2015
Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded . .
Cited – Welsh v Hole 6-Nov-1779
The plaintiff obtained judgment for pounds 20 and costs in a civil claim for assault, but then compromised the claim for a direct payment by the defendant of pounds 10. There was no collusion to defeat the solicitor’s right to payment of his bill. . .
Cited – Read v Dupper 13-Jun-1795
The defendant’s solicitor paid the plaintiff direct, after notice of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s interest, and had to pay again. Lord Kenyon began:
‘The principle by which this application is to be decided was settled long ago, namely that the . .
Cited – Ormerod v Tate 13-May-1801
An attorney has a lien upon a sum awarded in favour of his client, as well as if recovered by judgment: and if after notice to the defendant the latter pay it over to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorney may compel a repayment of it to himself, . .
Cited – Ex Parte Bryant 12-Aug-1815
Person arrested on his return from proving a debt at Guildhall, discharged with costs of application.
Though an order be made on a petition in bankruptcy, directing costs to be paid to the Petitioner personally, this does not take away the . .
Approved – Khans Solicitor (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and Another CA 8-May-2013
C instructed the claimants to bring proceedings. They compromised those proceedings, the defendant agreeing to pay C’s costs. A bill was submitted but before it was paid C withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and accepted the defendant’s . .
Cited – In re the Estate of Fuld, decd (No. 4) 1968
The solicitor sought to exercise a lien for his costs over money paid direct to his client.
Held: The solicitor’s right exists over both the amount of a judgment in favour of the client, and the amount of an order for costs in favour of the . .
Cited – Gould v Davis 1831
. .
Cited – In Re Moss 2-Jun-1866
Lord Romilly MR said: ‘I think it of great importance to preserve the lien of solicitors. That is the real security for solicitors engaged in business. It is also beneficial to the suitors. It would frequently happen, but for the lien which . .
Cited – Barker v St Quintin, Esq 22-Jan-1844
A solicitor’s the equitable lien operates by way of security or charge.
Baron Parke said: ‘The lien which an attorney is said to have on a judgment (which is, perhaps, an incorrect expression) is merely a claim to the equitable interference of . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.608733
An order made against a husband for payment of the wife’s costs to her solicitor. The solicitor sought a garnishee order in respect of unpaid costs. Lord Hanworth MR described the solicitor’s lien as a mere right to claim the equitable interference of the court.
Lord Merrivale said: ‘As to the first objection to the garnishee order nisi, what has to be determined is whether the wife’s solicitors were persons who had obtained a judgment or order against the husband for recovery or payment of money – that is, were they his creditors? The order relied on is that of March 10 1933 that the husband ‘do within seven days pay to Messrs White and Co, the solicitors of the wife, the sum of pounds 366.1s.4d, being with the sum of pounds 170 still in Court and pounds 170 already paid out the amount of the wife’s costs as taxed and certified’. An affirmative answer to the question I have formulated would seem to involve a conclusion that the solicitors and the wife had each obtained a judgment or order against the alleged debtor. If so, each would be a competent applicant for the garnishee order and entitled under the terms of [the Rules] upon affidavit by himself or his solicitor ‘to attach the moneys due to the debtor’. In the everyday practice of this Division the application by the solicitor for payment by the husband of the wife’s costs is taken to be the application of the wife. If this were not so, it would seem that the wife’s solicitor, with no misconduct on his part as a solicitor, might be personally condemned in the costs of an unsuccessful application. In my view the person who is entitled to take garnishee proceedings is the actual creditor. A somewhat similar question arose in the Court of Appeal in 1929: In re a Debtor. . . There, upon an order in divorce for payment by the co-respondent to the solicitors of the petitioner of the petitioner’s costs of the suit, the solicitors proceeded in bankruptcy against the co-respondent, and it was objected that they were not creditors. The judgment of the Court did not proceed upon this ground, but in the course of the judgment of Lord Hanworth MR these words occur: ‘the person at whose suit proceedings are taken must be the principal, the person in whose interest those proceedings are necessary. In my opinion the petitioning husband in this case was the person who was really the principal, for whose indemnity legal proceedings were necessary. The solicitors were merely acting as a necessary part of the machinery, under which the sum enured for the benefit of the petitioner; but they were not the principals as against the debtor.’ This was not a decision on the present state of facts, but it appears to me to support the contention raised on the part of the husband in the present case, and my conclusion upon this matter is that the solicitors were not entitled to become applicants as of their own right . . ‘
Lord Hanworth MR, Lord Merrivale
[1933] P 199
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.666006
Person arrested on his return from proving a debt at Guildhall, discharged with costs of application.
Though an order be made on a petition in bankruptcy, directing costs to be paid to the Petitioner personally, this does not take away the lien of the solicitor for his costs.
Vice Chancellor Plumer said: ‘I do not wish to relax the doctrine as to lien, for it is to the advantage of clients, as well as solicitors; for business is often transacted by solicitors for needy clients, merely on the prospect of having their costs under the doctrine as to lien.’
The Vice Chancellor also said, obiter, that knowledge of the solicitor’s lien on the part of the payer would be as effective as notice.
Plumer VC
[1815] EngR 982, (1815) 1 Madd 49, (1815) 56 ER 19
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.336792
The defendant’s solicitor paid the plaintiff direct, after notice of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s interest, and had to pay again. Lord Kenyon began:
‘The principle by which this application is to be decided was settled long ago, namely that the party should not run away with the fruits of the cause without satisfying the legal demands of his attorney, by whose industry, and in many instances at whose expense, those fruits are obtained.’
Lord Kenyon explained Lord Mansfield’s reference to assignment in Welsh v Hole in terms of equitable principle: ‘according to the rules of equity and honest dealing if the assignee give notice to the debtor of such assignment, he shall not afterwards be suffered to avail himself of a payment to the principal in fraud of such notice.’
Lord Kenyon
[1795] EngR 4137, (1795) 6 TR 361, (1795) 101 ER 595
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Welsh v Hole 6-Nov-1779
The plaintiff obtained judgment for pounds 20 and costs in a civil claim for assault, but then compromised the claim for a direct payment by the defendant of pounds 10. There was no collusion to defeat the solicitor’s right to payment of his bill. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd CA 2-Dec-2015
Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.356482
The plaintiff obtained judgment for pounds 20 and costs in a civil claim for assault, but then compromised the claim for a direct payment by the defendant of pounds 10. There was no collusion to defeat the solicitor’s right to payment of his bill.
Held: Lord Mansfield said: ‘An attorney has a lien on the money recovered by his client, for his bill of costs; if the money come to his hands, he may retain to the amount of his bill. He may stop it in transit if he can lay hold of it. If he apply to the Court, they will prevent its being paid over till his demand is satisfied. I am inclined to go still farther, and to hold that, if the attorney give notice to the defendant not to pay till his bill should be discharged, a payment by the defendant after such notice would be in his own wrong, and like paying a debt which has been assigned, after notice. But I think we cannot go beyond those limits.’
There having been no notice in that case, the solicitor’s claim against the defendant failed.
[1779] EngR 129, (1779) 1 Doug 238, (1779) 99 ER 155
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Explained – Read v Dupper 13-Jun-1795
The defendant’s solicitor paid the plaintiff direct, after notice of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s interest, and had to pay again. Lord Kenyon began:
‘The principle by which this application is to be decided was settled long ago, namely that the . .
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd CA 2-Dec-2015
Appeal by Edmondson against an Order dismissing Edmondson’s claim against Haven in respect of Haven’s conduct in settling on an inclusive basis personal injury claims directly with six clients of Edmondson with whom Edmondson had concluded . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.372998
An attorney has a lien upon a sum awarded in favour of his client, as well as if recovered by judgment: and if after notice to the defendant the latter pay it over to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorney may compel a repayment of it to himself, and he will not be prejudiced by a collusive release from the plaintiff to the defendant.
Lord Kenyon described the arrangement to pay the claimant direct as: ‘no other than a mere shuffle between the plaintiff and defendant to cheat the attorney of his lien.’
Lord Kenyon
[1801] EngR 256, (1801) 1 East 464, (1801) 102 ER 179
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.345502
A solicitor’s the equitable lien operates by way of security or charge.
Baron Parke said: ‘The lien which an attorney is said to have on a judgment (which is, perhaps, an incorrect expression) is merely a claim to the equitable interference of the Court to have that judgment held as a security for his debt.’
Baron Parke
[1844] EngR 134, (1844) 12 M and W 441, (1844) 152 ER 1270
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The court was asked as to use of the solicitor’s equitable lien, whereby equity provided security for the recovery by solicitors of their agreed charges for the successful conduct of litigation, out of the fruits of that litigation. It is a . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.304726
The defendant firm of solicitors had acted for the claimant and 30000 others in a claim for personal injuries from the leaking of a tanker. The claim was settled but before damages could be paid, another group obtained orders against the sums received. The result was that the claimant received nothing. She now claimed in professional negligence.
Andrew Smith J
[2016] EWHC 1324 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.565796
The court considered the status of an untaxed solicitor’s bill of costs against a client for whom he had acted in defamation proceedings. Sir Richard Scott V-C said: ‘It is a fact that [the client] never entered into any contract to pay the sums as claimed. He engaged Thomas Watts and Co as his solicitors but was not asked to and did not agree any particular rate of remuneration. The solicitors are entitled to reasonable and fair remuneration for the work they have done. It is too late for [the client] to apply with any prospect of success for the bills now to be submitted for taxation. .
But the position of the plaintiff firm is not, in my judgment, one in which they can simply ask the court, without any further investigation, to underwrite the amount they have chosen to claim in their three invoices. It may be that the amounts are reasonable. It may be that in one, or other, or several respects, the amounts are inflated . .
In my judgment, in a case such as this, where solicitors are applying for payment of their bill, the situation is analogous to one in which a plaintiff is applying for an unquantified sum which has to be quantified by a judicial process before judgment can be awarded for the appropriate amount.’
Sir Richard Scott V-C, Schiemann LJ
[1998] EWCA Civ 468, [1998] 2 Costs LR 59
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Thomas Watts and Co (Suing As a Firm) v Smith CA 14-Oct-1996
Adjourned application for leave to appeal against order for security for costs of appeal. . .
Cited by:
Approved – O Palomo Sa v Turner and Co; Turner and Co v O Palomo Sa CA 28-Jul-1999
A solicitor’s bill could only be taxed within one year of its delivery, but the common law right to challenge a bill on the grounds that the amount charged was unreasonable could continue after that time limit. The common law right to object to . .
Cited – Truex v Toll ChD 6-Mar-2009
The bankrupt appealed against an order in bankruptcy made against her on application by her former solicitors in respect of their unpaid costs. The bankrupt said that since the bill was yet untaxed, it might be altered and could not base a statutory . .
Approved – Joseph, Regina (on the Application Of) v Manches and Co CA 29-Jan-2002
. .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.143946
The tenant sought to impose knowledge by the landlord of the condition of the property. The landlord employed porters in the building.
Held: The presence of the porters was sufficient to fix the landlord with knowledge of the breach of his covenant. The Court applied the principle of deemed knowledge in the law of agency: ‘ When any fact or circumstance, material to any transaction, business or matter in respect of which an agent is employed, comes to his knowledge in the course of such employment, and is of such a nature that it is his duty to communicate it to his principal, the principal is deemed to have notice thereof as from the time when he would have received such notice if the agent had performed his duty, and taken such steps to communicate the fact or circumstance as he ought reasonably to have taken . .’
(1980) 39 P and CR 10, (1979) 251 EG 567
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Arundel Corporation v Khokher CA 9-Dec-2003
The tenant had served a notice to review the rent. The tenent delivered a counter notice personally be posting it through the letter box. The lease provided that the notice was to be served at the last known business address of the landlord. The . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.216583
Application by the Applicant in his capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the first respondent for an order that the time costs and expenses of the Trustee said to have been incurred in (a) preserving the files and records of Birchall Ryan (a solicitor’s practice carried on by the first respondent as sole principal at the date he was made bankrupt) (b) reconciling the client accounts of the Practice together with incidental connected costs and (c) the costs of these proceedings should be deducted pro rata from the client accounts of the Practice.
Held: The application was refused.
Pelling QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 1541 (Ch), [2016] 4 All ER 766, [2015] BPIR 751, [2017] 1 WLR 667
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2021; Ref: scu.547575
In the course of urgent children proceedings, counsel advised solicitors inappropriately to seek judicial review of a court decision. The application was persisted with despite warnings from the respondents that they intended to seek a wasted costs order against the solicitor and counsel personally. Such an order was made, and appealed.
Held: The proposition that a solicitor who acts on counsel’s advice must bear responsibility for that advice in all circumstances cannot be supported. Earlier orders had not been entirely correctly obtained. The local authority had made a decision which would have made any proceedings unnecessary, but did not communicate it to the solicitors. The order against the solicitor could not stand. Similarly the procedure for claiming an order against counsel had not been followed. Both orders were set aside.
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Woolf) Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Chadwick
[1996] EWHC Admin 368
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 51, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Cited – Locke v Camberwell Health Authority CA 23-May-1991
The court discussed the relative duties of solicitor and counsel. Taylor LJ set out the principles that: 1) In general a solicitor, is entitled to rely upon the advice of counsel properly instructed;
2) For a solicitor, without special . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 July 2021; Ref: scu.136916
Wall LJ said: ‘A cigarette packet carries the warning that smoking can kill you. Solicitors’ standard terms of business should carry a warning that litigation can cost you. For litigation is an inherently risky business: there are no certain winners; and very often even the fruits of success are never recovered. This is just such a case. The moral is caveat litigator.’
Lord Justice Ward
[2008] EWCA Civ 905, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep PN 18, [2009] PNLR 3
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Myers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.271260
The solicitor claimant renewed her application for permission to apply for judicial review of decisions by the Legal Services Commission refusing renewal of legal aid contracts. The LSC said that she had failed to comply with requests for file reviews and audits.
Owen J
[2010] EWHC 1457 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.416791
Where documents with the benefit of legal professional privilege come into the hands of the opposing side, the court should be ready to grant an injunction to prevent their misuse.
Browne-Wilkinson VC J
(1987) NLJ 148, Times 22-Jan-1987, [1988] FSR 232
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lord Ashburton v Pape CA 1913
Pape’s bankruptcy discharge was opposed by Lord Ashburton. He subpoenaed Brooks, a clerk to Lord Ashburton’s solicitor and obtained privileged letters written by Lord Ashburton to Mr Nocton, which Pape proposed to use. Pape and Brooks had colluded. . .
Cited – Goddard v Nationwide Building Society CA 1986
A solicitor had acted for both purchaser and lender in a purchase transaction. The purchaser later sought to recover from the defendant for a negligent valuation. The solicitor had however discussed the issue with the plaintiff before the purchase, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Derby and Co Ltd v Weldon (No 8) CA 27-Jul-1990
There had been a lengthy and contentious process of discovery. Certain documents with legal professional privilege had also been handed over inadvertently. The plaintiff sought their return and an order against them being used.
Held: The . .
Cited – Stiedl v Enyo Law Llp and Others ComC 18-Oct-2011
The applicant, defendant in the main proceedings, sought an injunction to restrain the solicitors from acting for the claimant and from making any use of documents which had come into their privileged possession whilst acting for him. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.193603
When property in land passes by a deed, the property in the deed passes with it.
An attorney who draws and attests a deed, conveying land from A. to B., is not allowed afterwards to say that the property in the land and deed did not pass.
Where a jury gave a general verdict for Defendant on three issues, having been mis-directed on one, the Court granted a new trial on payment of costs.
[1837] EngR 657, (1837) 3 Bing NC 680, (1837) 132 ER 572
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.313774
[1837] EngR 658, (1837) 6 Ad and E 564, (1837) 112 ER 216
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.313775
[1998] EWHC Admin 531
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.138652
The defendant solicitors had acted for defendants in an action brought by the plaintiff. They swore and filed an affidavit in support of an application to strike out elements of the action. The affidavit spoke as to abusive and threatening calls and actions from the plaintiff, and of instructions to seek injunctive relief. The plaintiff now sued the solicitors alleging in effect defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendants appealed against the refusal of the judge to strike out the claim.
Held: The appeal was successful, and the claim struck out. The statements complained of were sufficiently close to the matters at issue between the parties to attract protection: ‘it might have been open to Mr. Samuels to apply to have paragraphs 7 to 19 of the affidavit struck out on the grounds of their lack of relevance, but I am in no doubt at all that they are well within the absolute privilege of witness immunity.’
Thorpe LJ, Holman J
[1997] EWCA Civ 1755, [1997] CLY 4860
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Seaman v Netherclift 1876
The court considered the protection of a witness in court from defamation actions and otherwise.
Held: Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ said: ‘I am very far from desiring to be considered as laying down as law that what a witness states altogether . .
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Cited – Roy v Prior HL 1970
The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Iqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.142151
The Honourable Mr Justice Nicol
[2009] EWHC 783 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.380329
The claimants challenged revocation of their student membership of the Law Society. The revocation had been made on the basis that they had declared work to be their own unaided work when they were said to have colluded on an assignment.
Held: In one case the appeal was allowed. If dishonesty was to be a finding that tibunal had to be able to establish the offence clearly. Here the student had had her work proofread by another student not taking the same module. In the other case though the student should have taken better care of her declaration, the prohibition was lifted.
[2008] EWCA Civ 769
Bailii
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bolton v The Law Society CA 8-Dec-1993
The solicitor who had been admitted to the Roll for two years had disbursed clients money to relatives, as part of the conveyance of property without adequate security but in the expectation that the money would be repaid. The Tribunal found that . .
Cited – Jideofo v The Law Society; Evans v The Solicitors Regulation Authority 31-Jul-2007
(Master of the Rolls) Each applicant challenged decisions not to allow them to become student members of the Law Society.
Held: The test for character and suitability was a necessarily high one; was one which was not concerned with punishment, . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 June 2021; Ref: scu.271137
Where a substantial delay by a solicitor leads to an unless order and puts his client at risk of having case his dismissed, the solicitor should ensure that independent advice is given. An ‘unless order’ is preliminary to a striking out order.
Times 19-Feb-1998, Gazette 08-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 211, [1998] TLR 84
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Keith Walker v Wolferstans (a Firm) CA 10-Mar-1999
The plaintiff sought damages against the defendants for having allowed his claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to fail by limitation. He now sought leave to appeal out of time after his claim was struck out for failure to comply with . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.143689
Sir Anthony Clarke MR
[2007] EWCA Civ 840
Bailii
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.341220
The claimant had been removed from the roll of student members of the Law Society, and wished his appeal to be heard in private.
Held: It is only in a rare case that it is appropriate to hold a hearing of this kind in private.
As to the 1974 Act, the court said: ‘The contention that the 1974 Act renders spent convictions confidential misunderstands the Act’s intention and its ambit. If it were to render spent convictions confidential it would have (as it were) to seal that part of an individual’s criminal record such that no-one except perhaps the individual concerned had access to it. It does not do so.
It would also have to render private convictions that were matters of public record and may well have been, as in this case, reported in the press. Notwithstanding the obvious practical difficulty of rendering secret a public judgment which had been freely and properly reported in the press, the Act does not purport to have that effect and does not, in my opinion, do so. It simply ensures, for instance, that an individual cannot be questioned about such convictions in defined contexts or be prejudiced if details of the spent convictions come to the attention of a current employer during the course of that employment. As Maurice Kay J held in R (Pearson) v DVLA [2002] EWHC 2482 (Admin) at 15, with which I agree, ‘The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act confers certain privileges . . It does not attempt to go beyond the grant of those limited privileges to provide a right of confidentiality in respect of spent convictions. While the 1974 Act in some respects may place an individual with spent convictions in the same position as someone with no convictions, it does not do so by rendering the convictions confidential; it does so simply by putting in place a regime which protects an individual from being prejudiced by the existence of such convictions. For these reasons I reject the submission that the 1974 Act renders the appellant’s convictions confidential.’
[2008] EWCA Civ 811
Bailii
Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 2001, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – KJO v XIM QBD 7-Jul-2011
kjo_ximQBD11
The claimant had, some 20 years previously, been convicted and sentenced for forgery of a will. The defendants, relatives, had ever since written to those with whom he had dealings to tell them of the conviction and facts. The claimant, unable to . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.270700
The Claimant solicitors sue their former client for payment under a damages-based agreement – whether agreement in breach of 2013 Regulations
HHJ Parfitt
[2020] EWHC 1855 (Ch)
Bailii
Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013
England and Wales
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.652400
[1837] EngR 756, (1837) 2 My and Cr 526, (1837) 40 ER 740
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.313873
[1837] EngR 755, (1837) Donn Eq 274, (1837) 47 ER 368
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.313872
[2001] EWCA Civ 1914
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.218619
The marriage was unhappy. The wife consulted briefly but did not instruct a solicitor, Mr Tooth. Some 7 years later as divorce proceedings were considered, the husband did instruct Mr Tooth. She sought to prevent him acting, but then wanted to withdraw her summons. The husband would only agree if she paid the costs. She refused.
Held: The summons was quite properly issued. There was a real matter to be considered. The point of view of the petitioner wife was put forward moderately it seems to me. It was met with a very strong rebuff which indicated that, come what may, the respondent husband was going to seed the dismissal of the matter with costs. There remained a real and not just fanciful risk of conflict. The husband’s appeal against the costs order failed.
[1999] EWCA Civ 890
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re A Firm of Solicitors ChD 9-May-1995
A solicitor moving from a firm acting on one side of a dispute to the firm on the other side must be able to show that no conflict of interest would arise. The court should intervene unless it is satisfied that there is no risk of disclosure. It . .
Cited – Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (A Firm) HL 16-Dec-1998
Conflicts of Duty with former Client
The House was asked as to the duties of the respondent accountants (KPMG). KPMG had information confidential to a former client, the appellant, which might be relevant to instructions which they then accepted from the Brunei Investment Agency, of . .
Cited – RTZ Pension Property Trust Ltd v ARC Property Developments Ltd and Asfa Limited CA 26-Nov-1998
Where a plaintiff discontinued his action, but still sought costs from the defendant, he had to show some misconduct by the defendant, such as encouraging the action by concealment of a defence. A mere late amendment causing no loss was not . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 January 2021; Ref: scu.145805
The respondent’s practice had suffered intervention by the Council. He complained that they had not followed the required procedure.
Held: The notices were lawful. The issues were ones of public law, and the respondent was required to frame his claim by way of judicial review, and to use an ordinary action would be an abuse of process. This was not a case in which the public law element was incidental.
[1997] EWCA Civ 3038
Bailii
Administration of Justice Act 1985 31
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 December 2020; Ref: scu.143437
[1997] EWHC Admin 877
Bailii
Updated: 25 December 2020; Ref: scu.137822
Lord Selborne LC said: ‘It is of the highest importance . . that all communications between a solicitor and a client upon a subject which may lead to litigation should be privileged, and I think the court is bound to consider that . . almost any contract entered into between man and man . . may lead to litigation before the contract is completed. Any correspondence passing between the date of the contract which afterwards becomes the subject of litigation and the litigation itself is, in my opinion, on principle, within the privilege extended to the non-production of communications between solicitors and clients . . it is absolutely essential to the interest of mankind that a person should be free to consult his solicitor upon anything which arises out of a contract which may lead to litigation; that the communications should be perfectly free, so that the client may write to the solicitor, and the solicitor to the client, without the slightest apprehension that those communications will be produced if litigation should afterwards arise on the subject to which the correspondence relates.’
Lord Selborne LC spoke about the discretion available under the law of equity, saying that equity sets out to ‘do more perfect and complete justice’ than would be the result of leaving the parties to their remedies at common law.
References: (1872) LR 14 Eq 477, (1874) LR 9 Ch App 279
Judges: Lord Selborne LC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194268
The defendant bank sought protection from disclosure of advice it had received from its solicitors.
Held: To the extent that the communications were for the purpose of seeking advice as to its legal rights and obligations, the communications were protected, but not for communications seeking to obtain advice on the manner of presentation of materials to a private enquiry.
References: [2003] EWHC 2565 (Comm)
Judges: Tomlinson J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194259