Vitalijus Dziugys v Ersan and Co Solicitors Ltd
[2024] EWHC 434 (KB)
Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited v Wiggin LLP & Anor
23 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 656 (Ch)
High Court
A company sued its former solicitors, claiming they mishandled a previous case. The judge threw out the lawsuit, saying the company's claims were baseless, it was wasting everyone's time, and it was too late to bring the case anyway. The company also has to pay the solicitors' legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited (BUMP) sued Wiggin LLP and Fox Williams LLP for professional negligence.
- •BUMP's previous claim against a Swedish TV company for copyright infringement, breach of confidence, and passing off was dismissed by Snowden J.
- •BUMP alleged Fox Williams failed to present key evidence, including the "Links Evidence", "Read Your Fortune" document, and a news story about "Clash of the Choirs."
- •BUMP alleged Wiggin withheld downloaded documents from BUMP's website.
- •BUMP sought £55 million in damages from both defendants.
- •The defendants applied for summary dismissal of BUMP's claims.
Legal Principles
Summary Judgment
CPR 24.2
Strike Out
CPR 3.4(2)
Copyright Infringement
Snowden J's judgment, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (18th ed)
Breach of Confidence
OBG Ltd v Allan, Matalia v Warwickshire County Council, Snowden J's judgment
Professional Negligence
Various case law (implicitly discussed)
Causation
Various case law (implicitly discussed)
Abuse of Process
Henderson v Henderson, Cleeves v University of Oxford, Snowden J's judgment
Limitation
Limitation Act 1980, Holt v Holley and Steer Solicitors
Duty of Solicitor to Opposing Party
Al-Kandari v Brown, NRAM v Steel
Outcomes
Claims against Fox Williams LLP dismissed.
Claims lacked merit, were an abuse of process, and were time-barred. The alleged breaches of duty did not cause loss, and the evidence was irrelevant.
Claims against Wiggin LLP dismissed.
No duty of care was owed to BUMP. The alleged breaches did not cause loss, and the claims were an abuse of process and time-barred. The evidence was irrelevant.
Costs awarded to defendants on the indemnity basis.
Claims were wholly without merit, abusive, and contained wide-ranging, unevidenced allegations.
Similar Cases
Hope Capital Limited & Anor v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP
[2023] EWHC 3157 (KB)
Shadi Al Tarboush v Yusuf Cassam
[2024] EWHC 639 (KB)
Harrington Scott Limited v Coupe Bradbury Solicitors Limited
[2023] EWHC 294 (Ch)
Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports & Anor (Wasted Costs Order Judgment)
[2024] EWHC 2415 (KB)