Vitalijus Dziugys v Ersan and Co Solicitors Ltd
[2024] EWHC 434 (KB)
Robert David Mackenzie v Rosenblatt Solicitors (a firm) & Anor
17 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 331 (Ch)
High Court
A businessman sued his lawyers for bad advice on a lawsuit against his former company. The judge said the lawyers messed up by not warning him enough about how weak his case was, but also said the businessman would have gone ahead with the case anyway, so the lawyers don't have to pay.
Key Facts
- •Claimant Bob Mackenzie (BM) alleges Rosenblatt Solicitors acted negligently in advising him on a conspiracy claim against AA plc and others.
- •BM was dismissed from AA for gross misconduct and believed a conspiracy to injure him existed.
- •The conspiracy claim was abandoned, leading to consent orders dismissing parts of the claim with BM paying costs.
- •BM claims damages for costs incurred due to the abandoned conspiracy claim and seeks rescission of a fixed fee agreement.
- •The central issue is whether Rosenblatt should have advised BM that the conspiracy claim was unpleadable or weak.
Legal Principles
Misconduct Allegation Principles
SRA Code of Conduct 2011, paras 5.7 and 5.8
Standard of proof for conspiracy claims
Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27, CEF Holdings Ltd v Mundey [2012] EWHC 1524 (QB), Ivy Technology v Martin [2019] EWHC 2510 (Comm), Lakatamia Shipping Co Limited v Nobu Su [2012] EWHC 1907 (Comm)
Causation and mitigation of loss
Not explicitly cited, but discussed throughout
Misrepresentation
Not explicitly cited, but discussed throughout
Outcomes
Rosenblatt Solicitors breached their duty of care in four ways.
They failed to adequately advise BM about the weakness of the conspiracy claim, the failure of the original strategy, the risk of strike-out applications, and failed to inform BM of Counsel's advice.
None of the breaches caused BM loss.
BM's strong belief in the claim, and his determination to pursue it even when advised of its weakness, meant that he would have pursued the case even with non-negligent advice.
BM's misrepresentation claim against Rosenblatt fails.
IR's statement that he didn't know the outcome of the strike-out application was not a false representation, as his uncertainty was genuine.
BM's claim is dismissed.
No causation of loss was established from the breaches of duty.