Harley v McDonald; Glasgow Harley (A Firm) v McDonald: PC 10 Apr 2001

(New Zealand) A solicitor’s duty to the court was not breached merely because he had, on his client’s instructions, pursued a case which was hopeless. It was also inapposite to penalize him for work undertaken before the court had warned him of the view that the case was hopeless. The solicitor, as an officer of the court, has duties to achieve a minimum level of competence and not to abuse the court’s process. In its nature, the procedure of penalising a solicitor in costs, will be summary. The court should allow the solicitor proper opportunity to defend himself, and should restrain itself from investigating matters which were within judicial knowledge.
Times 15-May-2001, [2001] UKPC 20, Nos 9 of 2000 and 50 of 2000, [2001] 2 WLR 1749, [2001] 2 AC 678, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 584
Bailii, PC, PC
Citing:
CitedMyers 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 . .
[1940] AC 282, [1939] 4 All ER 484, (1939) 56 TLR 177, (1939) 162 LT 113, (1939) 109 LJKB 105

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.81242