Site icon swarb.co.uk

Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs and Kemp (a firm): ChD 1978

A solicitor had failed to register an option as a land charge over property. The court was asked what steps should have been taken by a solicitor in the conduct of a claim: ‘Mr Harman [leading counsel for the plaintiff] sought to rely upon the fact that Mr Stubbs was Geoffrey’s solicitor under some sort of general retainer imposing a duty to consider all aspects of his interest generally whenever he was consulted, but that cannot be. There is no such thing as a general retainer in that sense. The expression ‘my solicitor’ is as meaningless as the expression ‘my tailor’ or ‘my bookmaker’ in establishing any general duty apart from that arising out of a particular matter in which his services are retained. The extent of his duties depends upon the terms and limits of that retainer and any duty of care to be implied must be related to what he is instructed to do.
While No doubt the duties owed by a solicitor to his client are high in the sense that he holds himself out as practising a highly skilled and exacting profession. But I think that the court must beware of imposing upon solicitors – or upon professional men in other spheres – duties which go beyond the scope of what they are requested and undertake to do. It may be that a particularly meticulous and conscientious practitioner would, in his client’s general interest, take it upon himself to pursue a line of enquiry beyond the strict limits comprehended by his instructions. But that is not the test. The test is what the reasonably competent practitioner would do having regard to the standards normally adopted in his profession, and cases . . demonstrate that the duty is directly related to the confines of the retainer.’ The solicitors accepted ‘a common law duty not to injure their client by failing to do what they had undertaken to do and which, at their invitation, he relied on them to do.’
References: [1979] Ch 384, [1978] 3 All ER 571, [1978] 3 WLR 167, [1955-95] PNLR 95
Judges: Oliver J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.190233 br>

Exit mobile version