Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
Michael Partridge & Anor v Healys LLP
22 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2340 (KB)
High Court
The homeowners sued their lawyers for not getting them enough money in a previous lawsuit. The judge threw out the case because the homeowners didn't prove their lawyers' mistakes cost them any money and because they were already suing their lawyers in a different court over the same thing.
Key Facts
- •Claimants brought a professional negligence claim against defendant solicitors (Healys LLP) for their handling of a prior negligence claim against the claimants' previous lawyers.
- •The prior claim (2017 proceedings) was against the claimants' previous lawyers (Gomez, Maguire, and Evans) for their handling of a Gibraltar claim (Gibraltar proceedings) arising from a property purchase.
- •The 2017 proceedings involved claims of negligent advice and failure to pursue viable claims against Barclays and valuers.
- •A mediation in the 2017 proceedings resulted in a settlement offer of £575,000, which the claimants rejected.
- •Healys LLP terminated their CFA with the claimants following the rejected settlement offer.
- •A separate SCCO proceeding concerns Healys LLP's fees under the terminated CFA, with claimants alleging a repudiatory breach of contract.
- •The current claim alleges negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty by Healys LLP, including failure to advise on claims against valuers, inadequate handling of consequential loss claims, conflict of interest, and wrongful termination of the CFA.
Legal Principles
Principles for determining whether a claim has no real prospect of success for strike out or summary judgment.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339
Standard of care and skill for a legal professional is that of a reasonably competent practitioner.
Not explicitly cited but implied throughout
Claimant must prove negligence caused loss of something of value, with real and substantial prospects of success.
Not explicitly cited but implied throughout
Abuse of process can include an incoherent claim.
Not explicitly cited but stated in judgment
Whether a valuer owes a duty of care to a purchaser depends on the circumstances.
Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831; Scullion v BoS plc [2011] EWCA Civ 693
Outcomes
Claim struck out.
Claim had no real prospect of success and was an abuse of process due to duplication of issues in the SCCO proceedings. The court found the claimants failed to demonstrate how Healys' alleged negligence caused the claimed losses.
Valuation claim failed.
Court found no duty of care owed by valuers to the claimants in this specific high-value commercial transaction. Claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence to show this failure caused them loss.
Consequential loss claim failed.
Claimants failed to provide necessary evidence to support their consequential loss claim, despite repeated requests from Healys LLP. The court found the claimants' assertion that the lack of evidence was due to the solicitor's actions was not supported by the evidence.
Conflict of interest claim failed.
Claimants failed to plead that the advice at mediation was negligent. The court found that the alleged conflict was not sufficiently pleaded and did not cause loss.
Termination of CFA claim failed.
This issue is already being determined in the SCCO; proceeding with it in the KB Division would be an abuse of process. The claimants were also debarred from participating in SCCO.
Similar Cases
Stephen John Finnan v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
[2023] EWHC 3058 (Ch)
Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid & Ors v RLS Solicitors Limited (trading as RLS Law)
[2024] EWHC 1899 (Ch)
Niprose Investments Limited & Ors v Vincents Solicitors Limited
[2024] EWHC 801 (Ch)
Shadi Al Tarboush v Yusuf Cassam
[2024] EWHC 639 (KB)