The claimant solicitors sought contributions from counsel to the damages they had been obliged to pay to their client in negligence.
Held: Underhill J said: ‘My task is not to seek to decide definitively whether LL were liable in negligence to Mr and Mrs Fox for the amount of the loss settlement, but simply to decide whether the claim had a real and substantial prospect of success and thus constituted a thing of real value . . Even if there may sometimes be cases where it is open to the court, in effect, to try the lost action, this is certainly not one of them . . In performing that task I ought to take into account the principle deriving from Armory v. Delemirie (1722) 1 Strange 505, that if the negligence of the defendant has led to evidence being unavailable which might otherwise have assisted the victim of that negligence, he should not have the benefit of any consequent doubt.’
Judges:
Underhill J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 20 (QB), [2008] Lloyd’s Rep PN 8
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm) CA 8-Jul-2004
The defendant firm had negligently allowed a claim for damages against a firm of accountants to become statute barred. The defendants said the claim was of no or little value, since the claimant would have proceeded anyway.
Held: The court had . .
Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .
Cited by:
Cited – McFaddens (A Firm) v Platford TCC 30-Jan-2009
The claimant firm of solicitors had been found negligent, and now sought a contribution to the damages awarded from the barrister defendant. They had not managed properly issues as to their clients competence to handle the proceedings.
Held: . .
Appeal From – Pritchard Joyce and Hinds (A Firm) v Batcup and Another CA 5-May-2009
Standard expected of negligence claim on counsel
The claimant solicitors sought contributory damages from counsel for failing to advise them of the applicable limitation period in an action they were conducting against other solicitors in negligence. Counsel now appealed saying that the judged had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.280277