Niprose Investments Limited & Ors v Vincents Solicitors Limited
[2024] EWHC 801 (Ch)
Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
18 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued their lawyer and barrister for bad advice that led to them losing their home. A lower court quickly dismissed the case, but a higher court said the case should go to a full trial because there were too many unanswered questions about whether the lawyer was truly at fault. The higher court also let them proceed even though they filed their appeal very late.
Key Facts
- •Professional negligence claim against solicitors (First Defendant) and barrister (Second Defendant).
- •Claimant alleges negligent advice leading to forced sale of property.
- •Claimant brought proceedings outside the six-year limitation period.
- •Master McCloud granted summary judgment to First Defendant based on the 'reliance defence' (entitlement to rely on counsel's advice).
- •Claimant appealed Master McCloud's decision on procedural and substantive grounds.
- •The appeal was filed significantly late.
Legal Principles
Solicitor's entitlement to rely on counsel's advice.
Locke v Camberwell HA and Ridehalgh v Horsefield (Court of Appeal decisions).
Summary judgment under CPR 24.2(a)(i): Claimant has no real prospect of succeeding.
CPR 24.2
Reasonableness of reliance on counsel's advice depends on solicitor's expertise and the specialist nature of the advice.
Regent Leisuretime Ltd v Skerrett [2005] EWHC 2255
Court must consider evidence available at trial when deciding summary judgment applications.
White Book notes to CPR 24.2, Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No.5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550, Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] F.S.R. 3
Appeal court may strike out or set aside permission to appeal for compelling reasons.
CPR 52.18
Time limits for filing an appeal notice under CPR 52.12.
CPR 52.12
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Master's decision on summary judgment was flawed as the issue of the First Defendant's level of expertise was not sufficiently clear on the limited information available and therefore unsuitable for summary judgment. The claimant's procedural challenge was rejected.
Procedural challenge rejected.
Claimant was adequately notified of the issues to be argued.
Appeal proceeds despite late filing.
First Defendant did not challenge the late filing or the judge's decision to grant permission to appeal, and claimant didn't act with deliberate intent to circumvent rules.
Similar Cases
Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid & Ors v RLS Solicitors Limited (trading as RLS Law)
[2024] EWHC 1899 (Ch)
Vitalijus Dziugys v Ersan and Co Solicitors Ltd
[2024] EWHC 434 (KB)
Michael Partridge & Anor v Healys LLP
[2023] EWHC 2340 (KB)
Jacqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Christopher John Laycock
[2023] EWHC 1390 (KB)