Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Legal Professions - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 66 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Re Baron Investments (Holdings) Ltd [2001] 1 BCLC 2722
2001


Legal Professions
Conflict of interest - double employment
1 Citers



 
 Carter Holt Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging Ltd; 2001 - [2001] 3 NZLR 343

 
 Regina v Langford; CACD 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001

 
 Law Society v Gilbert; QBD 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001
 
Solicitor, Re Solicitor's Act 1974 No 1 of 2001 [2001] EWCA Civ 43
18 Jan 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR
Legal Professions
Appeal by Mr Tyrone Anthony Walker against a decision by the Appeals Committee to uphold the decision of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors ("OSS") to approve, for the purposes of the condition imposed upon Mr Walker's Practising Certificate
[ Bailii ]
 
SMC Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Fraser and Another Times, 26 January 2001
26 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
In a County Court case, one party complained that the solicitors representing the other party, a corporation, had previously acted for them. The court made an order requiring the corporate litigant to appoint another firm of solicitors. The corporation appealed. The order was lifted. Its form was objectionable in that it positively required the appointment of a different firm. A proper order was merely an order that the solicitors should not continue to represent that litigant.

 
David Macdonald v Geoffrey Myerson, John Callaghan, Derek A H Law [2001] EWCA Civ 1220
26 Jan 2001
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Mance And Mr Justice Charles
Legal Professions, Registered Land, Contract
The claimant had been involved in mortgage frauds, using the defendant firm of solicitors. He claimed an account following sales of the properties. At the time of the sales, the first defendant knew of the false identities used. The defendants claimed that the money had been paid out, and that the claim was for the proceeds of illegal acts, and he was not entitled to any equitable relief. Held: The houses had in fact been acquired by the claimant because of the use of powers of attorney, even though under a deceitful name. As to illegality, the documents were not executory, and as complete agreements were valid provided the claimant did not have to rely upon an illegal act. Defendants' appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Kaberry v Law Society [2001] EWCA Civ 108
29 Jan 2001
CA
Tuckey LJ
Legal Professions
Application for leave toappeal ot of time against order striking the applicant from the roll of solicitors.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cookson and Another v Ingham Clegg and Crowther (a Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 417
9 Feb 2001
CA

Legal Professions, Contract

[ Bailii ]

 
 Colley v Council for Licensed Conveyancers; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 259

 
 Donsland Ltd v Van Hoogstraten and others; CA 23-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 339

 
 In Re A (Children) (Contact: Expert Evidence); FD 27-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001

 
 Regina v A Special Commissioner ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd; Regina v Martyn Rounding (HM Inspector of Taxes) ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd; CA 2-Mar-2001 - Gazette, 03 May 2001; Times, 17 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 329

 
 Regina v The Chief Constable of the Northumbria Constabulary ex parte Thompson; CA 8-Mar-2001 - Times, 20 March 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 321
 
Solicitor, Re Solicitor's Act 1974, No 5 of 2001 [2001] EWCA Civ 372
14 Mar 2001
CA

Legal Professions

Solicitor's Act 1974
[ Bailii ]
 
Russell-Cooke Trust Co v Elliott 26th March 2001 unreported; (26th March 2001 unreported)
26 Mar 2001
ChD
Laddie J
Legal Professions
The case concerned the administration of investment schemes set up by a solicitor into whose practice the Law Society had intervened. Held: It was directed that a circular be sent to all investors to determine their views.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ex parte Arpad Toth; Admn 28-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 240

 
 Regina (on the application of Pamplin) v Law Society; Admn 30-Mar-2001 - [2001] All ER (D) 204

 
 In Re Wiseman Lee (Solicitors) (Wasted Costs Order) (No 5 of 2000); CACD 5-Apr-2001 - Times, 05 April 2001
 
Boodram v The State Times, 15 May 2001; No 65 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 18; [2002] 1 Cr App R 103
10 Apr 2001
PC
Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant's counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to assess what could be done to redress any prejudice or potential prejudice to the defendant. He also failed to pursue an allegation that the defendant had signed her confession only after being raped in the cells by a police sergeant. The appellant was accused of having murdered her husband by poisoning. Held: Where a defence case had clearly been conducted in an incompetent manner, to an extent that the defendant could not be said to have had a fair trial, then it was appropriate to set aside the conviction which followed. An appellate court should approach complaints about counsel's incompetence and its effects on a trial, with a healthy scepticism, but where the failure was fundamental, a court should only with great care find that the jury would have reached the same decision even with competent counsel.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Harley v McDonald; Glasgow Harley (A Firm) v McDonald; PC 10-Apr-2001 - 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
 
Regina (Toth) v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Times, 03 May 2001
3 May 2001
QBD

Legal Professions, Administrative
An application to the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal could properly be referred to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors before any finding had been made as to the presence of a prima facie case to answer. The purpose of the tribunal was not to settle a lis between the solicitor and complainant, but to settle the fitness of a solicitor to practise his profession, and the rules of the Tribunal should not be interpreted on that basis that that was their nature. Nevertheless, a reference must be for the purposes stated in the rules, namely so that a decision could be made as whether to lodge a further application against the respondent.
Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1994 (1994 No 288) 28

 
Barclay's Bank Plc v Varenka Goff Gazette, 17 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 635
3 May 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Mantell, and Lord Justice Buxton
Undue Influence, Banking, Legal Professions
The respondent executed an all monies charge over her property to secure the liability of companies in which she had no direct interest. The bank insisted that she employ solicitors to give her independent advice. The bank sought to enforce its security, and she claimed it was signed under undue influence, of which the bank was fixed with constructive notice. The bank appealed successfully against the order setting aside the charge. Although the bank were fixed with constructive notice of the undue influence, the employment of the independent solicitor was sufficient to discharge that constructive notice. That was only disapplied where no competent solicitor could have advised the wife to enter into the transaction, and that did not apply in this case.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Law Society v Southall [2001] EWCA Civ 756
17 May 2001
CA

Legal Professions
Application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Solicitor, Re Solicitor's Act 1974, No 9 of 2001 [2001] EWCA Civ 814
22 May 2001
CA

Legal Professions

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dean v Allin and Watts (a Firm); CA 23-May-2001 - Times, 28 June 2001; [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 249; [2001] EWCA Civ 758; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Report 249; [2001] PNLR 39; [2001] All ER (D) 288

 
 McLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another; PC 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 2425; [2001] UKPC D3; 2001 GWD 19-720; 2001 SCCR 475; 2001 SLT 780; 2002 SC (PC) 1; [2001] UKHRR 793
 
Master of the Rolls and Another, R v [2001] EWCA Civ 845
6 Jun 2001
CA

Legal Professions
The applicant sought to be able to study to be a solicitor as a matire student.
Law Society's Training Regulations 1990 810
[ Bailii ]

 
 Cornwall Gardens Plc Ltd v R O Garrard and Co Ltd and Another; CA 19-Jun-2001 - Times, 19 June 2001
 
Hooper v Fynmores Gazette, 21 June 2001; Times, 19 July 2001
21 Jun 2001
ChD

Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate, Legal Professions
The elderly testator had wanted to make a new will which would have increased the claimant's share of his estate by one eighth. The appointment to sign the will was cancelled when the solicitor was himself hospitalised, and the testator died before the second appointment. The solicitors appealed on the basis that the finding against them effectively imposed a higher duty to the beneficiary than would have been due to the testator. Held: The appeal was dismissed. In undertaking to prepare a will, the solicitor entered into a special relationship with the beneficiaries, an incident of which was a duty to them to act with due expedition and care. The proposed appointment should not have been cancelled without enquiry as to the testator's health and considering whether to send a substitute. It should not have been missed without the client's consent.

 
Rozzell v Speakman and Co [2001] EWCA Civ 996
27 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Carnworth
Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
The defendants appealed againt a finding of negligence with regard to the execution of a second mortgage. The claimant said she had not been properly advised about the consequences of a charge to secure repayment of her husband's debts. She said she had not been advised that on a bankruptcy, her own share in the property would be protected. Held: The judge's interpretation of the attendance notes, and his conclusion were inconsistent. He should have found that the risks and consequences had been explained.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rowe v Lindsay [2001] EWHC Admin 783
28 Jun 2001
Admn

Legal Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Julian v Rollit Farrel and Bladon [2001] EWCA Civ 1187
29 Jun 2001
CA

Contract, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Ashgar Khan Unreported, 10 July 2001
10 Jul 2001

Judge Wakerley QC
Legal Professions, Legal Aid
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 representation order was transferred. He emphasised that the court will insist on strict compliance with the provisions of Regulation 16 which meant that the grounds of the application and full particulars need to be specified by the existing representative.
He observed: "This court will insist on strict compliance with the provisions of Regulation 16 . . The grounds of the application and full particulars need to be specified by the existing representatives. Next, the substantial compelling reason under subparagraph 2(4), if relied on, needs to be specified so that I can identify it. It will not generally be sufficient to allege a lack of care or competence of existing representatives . . only in extremely rare cases, and where full particulars are given in the application, will a general ground of loss of confidence or incompetence be entertained. It must further be pointed out that it will not be sufficient simply to say that there is a breakdown in the relationship between solicitor and client. Many breakdowns are imagined rather than real or as a result of proper advice"
Criminal Defence Service (General)(No.2) Regulations 2001 16
1 Citers



 
 South Buckinghamshire District Council v Flanagan and Another; QBD 16-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 26 July 2001

 
 Colley v Council for Licensed Conveyancers; CA 17-Jul-2001 - Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1137; [2002] 1WLR 160

 
 Callery, Gregory Charles Russell v Charles Gray, Pal Pak Corrugated Ltd (No 1); CA 18-Jul-2001 - Times, 18 July 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1117; [2001] 1 WLR 2112; [2001] 2 Costs LR 163; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 743; [2001] 3 All ER 833; [2001] PIQR P32
 
Sumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited Times, 15 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1152; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 517; [2002] 4 All ER 68; [2002] CP Rep 3; [2001] CPLR 462; [2001] 2 LLR 517; [2002] 1 WLR 479
20 Jul 2001
CA
Phillips MR, Parker LJ, Mustill L
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
Documents had been translated from the Japanese, for the purposes of the litigation. The claimant refused disclosure, arguing that they were privileged, and protected from disclosure, having been prepared for the court proceedings. Held: The court ordered disclosure. Whatever level of privilege attached to the original applied also to the translation, and no additional confidentiality was created. In this case there was no element of selection from various materials to create a confidence under Lyell v Kennedy exception. That exception included documents themselves protected from disclosure.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In re P (a Barrister) (Wasted Costs Order); CACD 23-Jul-2001 - Times, 31 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1728
 
Longstaff and Another v Birtles and Others Gazette, 06 September 2001; Times, 18 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1219; [2002] 1 WLR 470
26 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans
Legal Professions, Equity
The claimants were clients of a firm of solicitors. At the suggestion of the solicitors, they entered into a partnership with the solicitors to run a hotel. No suggestion was made that they should seek independent advice. The business failed, and they claimed damages for professional negligence. Held: The duty to the client was paramount, including the duty to cause the client to receive independent legal advice. The defendant's solicitors' fiduciary duty extended beyond the termination of the retainer. The proceedings being amended to add a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, they were entitled to equitable compensation for losses occasioned.
1 Citers


 
Patel and Another v Daybells (a Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1229; [2002] PNLR 6
27 Jul 2001
CA
Mr Justice Carnwath, Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Longmore
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions, Damages
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 before completion. The matter was completed but the seller's bank refused to sign the release. The bank gave one figure to release the charge, but then demanded more. The buyers' solicitors were alleged to have been negligent, having completed on the basis of the vendor solicitor's undertaking to discharge the mortgage. This was standard practice in conveyancing transactions. Held: In accepting the vendor's solicitors undertaking, the client was exposed to some degree of risk. Nevertheless, it was enough to show that the routine and approved practice of English solicitors is one on which "the experts have directed their minds to the question of comparative risks and benefits and have reached a defensible conclusion on the matter" The solicitors were not negligent.
Land Registration Act 1925 110(5) - Law Society's Code for Completion by Post 1984
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Crowther v C B Gallon Cuthbertson Solicitors [2001] EWCA Civ 1423
31 Jul 2001
CA

Legal Professions
The claimant had succeeded in his action against his former solicitors, but sought now to appeal saying he wanted a retrial with a jury. Held: There was no prospect of the court ordering a retrial, and leave to appeal was not granted.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Ardington Electrical Services; Dennard v Plant; Sen v Steelform Engineering Company Ltd; Lagden v O'Connor [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 138
3 Aug 2001
CC
Judge Charles Harris QC
Consumer, Contract, Legal Professions
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.
1 Citers


 
Zappia Middle East Construction Co Ltd and Another v Clifford Chance (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1383
30 Aug 2001
CA

Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 McDougall v Tawse; ScSf 14-Sep-2001 - [2001] ScotSC 17

 
 Noueiri v Paragon Finance Plc (Practice Note); CA 19-Sep-2001 - Times, 04 October 2001; Gazette, 18 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1402; [2001] 1 WLR 2357; [2002] CP Rep 5; [2002] Fam Law 16; [2002] 1 Costs LR 12; [2001] NPC 138
 
Sarwar v Alam Times, 11 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1401; [2002] RTR 12; [2001] 4 All ER 541; [2002] 1 WLR 125; [2002] 1 Costs LR 37; [2002] Lloyd' Rep IR 126; [2002] PIQR P15
19 Sep 2001
CA
Judge Halbert, District Judge Wallace
Litigation Practice, Damages, Costs, Legal Professions, Insurance
Litigation had followed an accident. The claimant, a passenger, sought and won damages for personal injuries. He had taken out legal expenses insurance, and at dispute was the recovery of the cost of that insurance. He had been unaware of having the insurance and had also paid out for after the event insurance. He sought to recover the costs of the legal expenses insurance. A challenge of a judge's award in costs only proceedings should only rarely succeed. In such questions, the danger of conflicts of interest between the various insurance companies is real, and had been provided for in the regulations. Solicitors should inspect the client's various policies to clarify what legal expenses insurance was available. The need to provide free choice of solicitors did not override common provisions for small cases referring such matters to insurance panel solicitors. In a case where a passenger sued his driver, it was not appropriate for his choice of solicitor to be determined by the defendant's insurers, and after the event legal expenses insurance was a proper and reasonable expense and should be recoverable.
Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990 - Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 - Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 17 October 2001; [2001] UKHL 44; [2001] 3 WLR 1021; [2002] 2 AC 773; [2002] HLR 4; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 343; [2001] NPC 147; [2001] Fam Law 880; [2001] 43 EGCS 184; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 1061; [2001] 4 All ER 449; [2001] 2 FLR 1364; [2002] 1 P & CR DG14; [2001] 3 FCR 481
 
Brennan v The United Kingdom Times, 22 October 2001; 39846/98; (2002) 34 EHRR 18; [2002] Crim LR 216; [2001] ECHR 596; [2001] Po LR 387; [2011] ECHR 2271
16 Oct 2001
ECHR
JP Costa, President and Judges W Fuhrmann, L Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, HS Greve, K Traja and M Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dolle
Human Rights, Legal Professions
The applicant had complained that, after his arrest he had been refused adequate access to a lawyer. He had not been allowed to see his solicitor for two days, and only then in the presence of a police officer. No inferences had been drawn from his silence in the period before access to his lawyer, and therefore no detriment was shown because of the delay. The applicant was also protected in several ways in the adversarial system from that delay. However, if a lawyer is unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without surveillance, his assistance would lose its usefulness. The Convention guarantees rights that were practical and effective. Though jurisprudence indicated that such rights could be restricted for good cause, the manner of the officer's presence did infringe his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights under art 6.1.
After citing S v Switzerland, the court held: "The Court has noted above that Article 6(3) normally requires that an accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer in the initial phases of an interrogation. Furthermore, an accused's right to communicate with his advocate out of hearing of a third person is part of the basic requirements of a fair trial and follows from Article 6(3)(c). If a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without surveillance, his assistance would lose much of its usefulness, whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective. The importance to be attached to the confidentiality of such consultations, in particular that they should be conducted out of the hearing of third persons, is illustrated by the international provisions cited above. However, the Court's case-law indicates that the right of access to a solicitor may be subject to restrictions for good cause and the question in each case is whether the restriction, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, has deprived the accused of a fair hearing. While it is not necessary to prove, assuming such were possible, that restriction had a prejudicial effect on the course of the trial, the applicant must be able to claim he had been directly affected by the restriction in the exercise of the rights of the defence.
In this case, the trial judge found that the restriction served the purpose identified under section 45 of the 1991 Act of preventing information being passed on to suspects still at large. There was however no allegation that the solicitor was in fact likely to collaborate in such an attempt, and it was unclear to what extent a police officer would be able to spot a coded message if one was in fact passed. At most, it appears that the presence of the police officer would have had some effect in inhibiting any improper communication of information, assuming there was any risk that such might take place. While the Court finds that there is no reason to doubt the good faith of the police in imposing and implementing this measure-there is no suggestion, as pointed out by the Government, that the police sought to use the opportunity to obtain evidence for their own purposes, it nonetheless finds no compelling reason arising in this case for the imposition of the restriction."
The court considered proportionality, and concluded "that the presence of the police officer would have inevitably prevented the applicant from speaking frankly to his solicitor and given him reason to hesitate before broaching questions of potential significance to the case against him" [62] and that the presence of the police officer at the hearing and within earshot during the applicant's first consultation with his solicitor infringed his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights and that there had been, in consequence, a violation of Article 6(3)(c) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)."
Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Pine v Law Society; CA 25-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 04 January 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1574; [2002] 2 All ER 658; [2002] UKHRR 81
 
McIntyre v Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2001] ScotCS 249
2 Nov 2001
SCS
Lord Coulsfield and Lord Hamilton and Lord Prosser
Scotland, Legal Professions

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Choudry v Law Society of England and Wales [2001] EWCA Civ 1665
5 Nov 2001
CA

Legal Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Pollard, Re Solicitor's Act 1974, No 12 of 2001 [2001] EWCA Civ 1725
6 Nov 2001
CA

Legal Professions

Solicitors Act 1974
[ Bailii ]

 
 Farrelly, Re Solicitor's Act 1974, No 14 of 2001; CA 7-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1726
 
Manches and Co (a Firm) v Michael Joseph [2001] EWHC QB 448
9 Nov 2001
QBD
Mr Justice Eady
Legal Professions, Costs
The claimant firm of solicitors sought their costs of representing the defendant in defamation proceedings. He was unhappy with the way the proceedings had been conducted, suggesting that an excess amount of work had been undertaken. Held: The claim was unsustainable in law. There was clear evidence contrary to the defendant's allegations, there was no suggestion of professional negligence or misconduct, and the defendant had been made aware throughout of the risks and costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 2) Times, 21 November 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002
16 Nov 2001
ChD
Justice Neuberger
Legal Professions, Costs, Litigation Practice
The power to make a wasted costs order did not apply only against advocates in court, and not only against the applicant's own representatives. The test was as to the causing of additional costs. In this case several barristers had been involved at different stages. The defendants asserted that they should have appreciated that there was no prospect of success in an allegation of fraud. A decision to plead fraud, within the terms of the barristers' code of conduct, was a matter of professional judgement. An order should be made only if the view reached by counsel that he could plead dishonesty was unreasonable or reckless. In this case also the claimants insisted on retaining their legal privilege, and accordingly the barristers were unable properly to defend their decisions.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Byrne v Sefton Health Authority Times, 28 November 2001; Gazette, 04 January 2002
22 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Longmore
Costs, Legal Professions
There was no power to make an order for wasted costs against a solicitor who had not been acting in a matter when proceedings were issued. Delays eventually led to the dismissal of a medical negligence case for limitation. The defendant authority sought their lost costs against the firm. The true test was whether the behaviour complained of was a cause of the unnecessary incurring of costs. A 'but for' test was insufficient.
Supreme Court Act 1981 51(6)
1 Cites


 
Dooley v Law Society (2) Times, 16 January 2002; Gazette, 10 January 2002
23 Nov 2001
ChD
Justice Lightman
Legal Professions
The respondent intervened in the claimant's legal practice. He claimed a duty on the Law Society to administer his former practice in such a way as to maximize recovery of outstanding fees and disbursements. Held: The Law Society had no duty to pursue such matters. Its duties could be satisfied by allowing him supervised access to the files. The Society's duty lay first to the solicitor's clients. The Society on intervening took the right to retain not only sums within the practice, but also sums received in respect of work undertaken up to the date of the intervention, but unpaid at the time.
Solicitors Act 1974
1 Citers


 
Tassell and others v President and Law Society [2001] EWCA Civ 1939
30 Nov 2001
CA

Legal professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Hole and Pugsley v Penelope Jane Sumption Times, 29 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2001] EWHC Ch 465
5 Dec 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Hart
Legal Professions
The applicant sought to be excused from performance of an undertaken given as a solicitor. They relied upon the Citadel Management case as authority that, if they took timely steps to warn the person in whose favour the undertaking had been given of a supervening change of circumstances, they could be excused performance. Held: The case was no such authority. Such a view was neither necessary nor obvious and, in the instant case would destroy the business efficacy of the undertaking.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Singh v Law Society Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 21 February 2002
5 Dec 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mrs Justice Hallet and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Legal Professions, Costs
Several partners in a solicitors practice may have been at fault, but only one partner had been brought before the tribunal. He appealed against an order making him solely responsible for the costs. Held: There was nothing necessarily wrong with such an order.
Solicitors Act 1974 47(2)(i) - Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1994 (1994 No 288) 22

 
Law Society v Southall Times, 07 January 2002; [2002] BPIR 336
14 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Professions, Limitation
In making a strike out decision under Part 24, the court of first instance was exercising a discretion which an appellate court should be reluctant to disturb. The court should only interfere in the case of a manifest error. The Law Society had intervened in the legal practice of the respondent's late husband. The court had struck out a claim by the Society that the home had not been validly transferred to her. That decision was not outside those open to the court on the evidence. There was no applicable limitation period in a case concerning gifts made by the debtor.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 24
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Brown and Another v Bennett and Others (No 3) Times, 04 January 2002; Gazette, 21 February 2002
17 Dec 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Neuberger
Legal Professions
When a barrister was the subject of an application for a wasted costs order, it was proper to require him to disclose which non-privileged documents he had had sight of, provided that the request was not a way of trying to discover what was in counsel's brief, even though that might be an incidental consequence.
1 Cites


 
White v Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and others [2001] EWHC Admin 1149
17 Dec 2001
Admn
Lightman J
Legal Professions
The claimant solicitor sought a judicial review, on the grounds of procedural unfairness, of the decisions of the respondent in upholding complaints against him. The procedure involved several stages, an investigatory stage, an adjudication, an appeal, and a further appeal to the Tribunal. The solicitor complained that the adjudicator had failed to follow up certain enquiries. Held: It was for the solicitor to present his evidence. The solicitor had been told that the adjudicator would not examine original documents unless requested to. The solicitors were entitled to a fair hearing, but this need not always be an oral hearing. Lightman J criticised the absence of any document setting out properly the complaints scheme for third parties: "These proceedings have revealed that there is no single document setting out the procedure to be followed on the investigation and determination of such complaints against solicitors. There are merely a series of information sheets supplied by the Law Society to the parties at the various stages of the proceedings. The parties (and most particularly solicitors) are accordingly unable to find any statement in a single document of the procedures or any guidance in this regard in any authoritative Law Society publication or in any text book (e.g. Cordery on Solicitors). This lacuna is most unfortunate…"
Solicitors Act 1974 37A
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hammond Suddard, Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 191; [2001] EWCA Civ 1915; [2001] EWCA Civ 2065
18 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, And, Mr Justice Wall
Costs, Legal Professions, Civil Procedure Rules
The appellant sought staying the order for him to pay costs pending the results of an appeal, and the respondent sought security for costs in fighting the appeal, and a striking out in default of payment, and for security for payment of the judgement debt. The applicant company is a limited liability company registered in the Virgin Islands and without assets within the jurisdiction. The solicitors had claimed for their costs in representing the claimant, and the claimant wished to counterclaim asserting professional negligence. The appellant filed papers showing the company's dire financial condition, but the court considered it inadequate. Held: There was no risk of the appeal being stifled by the costs being paid. An order for security for costs was appropriate in the light of the applicant's failure to disclose detailed assets. Here, leave to appeal had been refused, then granted by a single Lord Justice, and where compelling reason existed, the court could impose conditions on the appeal going ahead. The difficulty of enforcing any award, and failure of the claimant to give full disclosure, was such a compelling reason, and the court should exercise its discretion in ordering security for the judgement debt appealed against. The decision may have been different if the court had concluded that the appeal might be stifled. When considering a stay, the court should ask i) what were the risks of the appeal being stifled if a stay was refused, and ii) if a stay was granted, but the appeal failed, would the respondent be able to enfoiorce the judgment, and iii) if the stay were refused and the appeal succeeded, but the order enforced in the interim what prejudice would attach to the appellants.
Civil Procedure Rules 25.13(2)(b), 25.15(1), 52.9(1)(c)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Dickinson v Rushmer [2002] 1 Costs LR 98; [2001] EW Costs 17; [2001] EWHC 9018 (Costs)
21 Dec 2001
SCCO
Mr Justice Rimer sitting with Assessors
Costs, Legal Professions
CourtService After strenuously contested proceedings in the County Court for an account the claimant recovered some £18,000, and subsequently submitted a bill for £86,000 odd. The indemnity principle was raised before a Deputy Costs Judge who then asked to see the client care letter, the bill of costs sent to the client and the calculations of payments made thereunder, but refused to show these documents to the paying party, holding that he was satisfied that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle after considering the documents, and then proceeded with the assessment, which resulted in some, but only modest, reductions in the figure claimed. The defendant appealed, contending that he should have been permitted to see the documents shown to the Costs Judge.
In this case, in contrast with the case of South Coast Shipping (No.15 of 2001), the learned Judge felt able to decide the issue purely on careful analysis of the English authorities, without reference to the European legislation or authorities, though they were cited to him.
The gist of the Judge’s decision allowing the appeal is in paragraph 33 of his judgment, which reads:
"In my view, the procedure adopted by the costs judge was unfair. I can in any event see no good reason why the client care letter and the payment calculations could not have been disclosed to the defendant, since I have not been persuaded that they were privileged. But if anything in them might have been regarded as privileged, one course which might at least have been considered was the redaction from them of the privileged parts, a course which could or might also have been considered in relation to Wakefields’ bills. Ultimately, however, this was a simple situation in which the claimant chose to prove his version of a disputed issue of fact by reference to certain documents. In my view, the basic principle is that, if he wanted to do so, fairness required him also to disclose the documents to the defendant."
The learned Judge earlier held that in his opinion the bill to the client was, on the basis of the judgment of Sir G J Turner V-C in Chant v Brown [1852] 9 HARE 790, privileged from production.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.