Defendant barrister and solicitors applied to have the claims against them for professional negligence struck out. They had advised on a settlement of a dispute, which settlement the claimant now said was negligently wrong.
Held: The advice given that the claimant’s argument would fail was correct. Nor did the claimant have any real prospect of establishing that the advice on the figures was negligent. The defendants had advised that unless the settlement proposed was accepted, Legal Aid would be withdrawn. In effect the claimant was arguing that his lawyers failed to circumvent the regulations. Summary judgment was granted against the claimant.
Vos J
[2010] EWHC 93 (Ch), [2010] BPIR 503, [2010] NPC 12
Bailii
Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
Cited – Moy v Pettman Smith (a firm) and another HL 3-Feb-2005
Damages were claimed against a barrister for advice on a settlement given at the door of the court. After substantial litigation, made considerably more difficult by the negligence of the solicitors, the barrister had not advised the claimant at the . .
Cited – Karpenko v Paroian, Courey, Cohen and Houston 1981
(Ontario High Court) Andersen J said: ‘What is relevant and material to the public interest is that an industrious and competent practitioner should not be unduly inhibited in making a decision to settle a case by the apprehension that some Judge, . .
Cited – Khan v Mortgage Express 2000
Secured creditors who had proved in respect of the expected shortfall over the value of their security, were not prevented from realising their security over and above its expected value. . .
Cited – Household Mortgage Corporation plc v Whitehead and Another CA 14-Nov-2002
The mortgage lender had proved in the voluntary arrangement as an unsecured creditor. It had valued the security as less than the debt, and accepted a dividend on the portion remaining unsecured. It now sought to enforce the security. It was argued . .
Cited – Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst and Young CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from its accountants, saying that had they been advised of the difficulties in their financial situation, they would have been able to avoid the loss of some 2.5 billion pounds, or to sell their assets at a time when . .
Cited – Hanning v Maitland (No 2) CA 1970
Edmund Davies LJ rejected ‘serious impoverishment’ as a description of the test for severe financial hardship in the context of a Legal Aid: ‘the statute does not make impoverishment a prerequisite to the granting of relief to the unassisted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence, Legal Aid
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396454
