An appeal claim, which centred on allegations of collusion and negligence against a law firm, has recently been thrown out by a High Court Judge due to the case “going nowhere”.
Brem v Clark & Anor
Case summary
In this case, Mr Justice Martin Spencer ruled that a previous Court ruling to dismiss the claim against Dominic Clark, the seller of a property in Basildon, and Rudd Solicitors, the Appellant’s (Benjamin Brem) legal representative, was correct. In dismissing the appeal, he referred to the “somewhat pitiful state of the pleaded case’ and that the claims of alleged fraud from Mr Brem were “incoherent”.
Mr Brem had been represented by Rudd Solicitors on a property purchase. However, during the transaction, a dispute concerning a section of the back garden arose which was not included in the deal. This reduced the value of the property by £16,000.
In the initial letter of claim issued by Mr Brem to Rudd Solicitors, he alleged fraud and collusion between the law firm and the seller, as well as professional negligence. Rudd Solicitors dismissed both allegations.
In the Appellant’s second letter of claim, he claimed that Rudd Solicitors had “deliberately delayed matters” contrary to his instructions and provided the seller with time to register sub-titles of the separated land.
Shortly before the case was due to be heard, Mr Brem applied to change the Particulars of Claim. As a result, the case had to be adjourned and Mr Brem was ordered to pay Rudd Solicitors’ £2,700 legal costs, which it had incurred as a result of the adjournment.
Both Respondents (Rudd Solicitors and Dominic Clark) agreed to a further six-month delay. However, on the date of the third hearing, the Claimant’s counsel was unable to attend due to having Covid-19. At this point, His Honour Judge Saunders struck out the case as it would incur further and unnecessary legal costs, which were disproportionate to Mr Brem’s claim, to adjourn the case once more.
Mr Brem appealed this decision, claiming that the hearing was not properly carried out and that Judge Saunders should have adjourned the case. Rudd Solicitors understandably agreed with the decision, submitting that Judge Saunders had carried out a proper balancing exercise of the relevant factors of the case. Adding that Mr Brem’s late application to adjourn the case epitomised how the litigation had been conducted.
Mr Justice Martin Spencer stated that it was “abundantly clear” that Judge Saunders had been fully aware of the difficulties encountered by Mr Brem’s in the legal proceedings. However, he went on to say that:
“…the courts have continuously recognised, the court’s resources are precious and continuous adjournments are highly undesirable, not least because of the knock-on effect on other cases…This was, in effect, the claimant’s third bite at the cherry and the learned judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that enough was enough.”
Comment
This case highlights the Court’s attitude to cases being prosecuted timeously and correctly in the first place. Care should be taken before starting proceedings to ensure that the allegations are correctly thought through and pleaded in such a way to prevent last minute amendments (where possible). Whilst the Court will give litigants every opportunity to amend pleadings they will only do so provided a proper balancing exercise is undertaken.
How can we help?
Daniel Brumpton is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team, specialising in professional negligence and commercial litigation.
For more information on the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Daniel or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online enquiry form.
contact us