High Court Dismisses £55m Claim Against Law Firms

The High Court has recently dismissed a lawsuit brought forward by a businessman against two prominent law firms. The businessman had also lodged complaints against these firms and their representatives to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Case summary

The claim, which alleged negligence and breach of duty and was valued at £55m, was deemed an abuse of process by the High Court. Deputy Master Linwood noted that the plaintiff, Banner Universal Motion Pictures (BUMP), had levelled “baseless allegations” against the law firms Fox Williams and Wiggin. These accusations were also reported to the SRA.

The Court was informed that the director of BUMP, Mr Banner, had engaged Fox Williams to file claims of copyright infringement, breach of confidence, and passing off against three major media companies. These companies were represented by Wiggin. The claims were centred around a TV game called Minute Winner, which BUMP asserted was its original creation and intellectual property. This game, they claimed, was infringed upon by another TV game in Sweden, Minute to Win It.

However, these claims were dismissed in 2016 by Mr Justice Snowden, who concluded that they were not “sustainable on any basis”. This decision was also influenced by the fact that a similar claim had been rejected by a Swedish Court in 2014.

Deputy Master Linwood observed that Mr Banner was distressed and angered by what he perceived as the theft of his intellectual property. As a result, he directed his anger towards his former solicitors and the solicitors representing the successful defendants. He later extended his complaints to the SRA to include individual lawyers at Fox Williams and Wiggin, as well as those at the law firms RPC and Browne Jacobson, who were defending them against the negligence claim.

BUMP brought claims against Fox Williams for professional negligence, and breach of the retainer agreement and duty of care. Against Wiggin, BUMP alleged a breach of duty over supposed disclosure failures.

Deputy Master Linwood noted that BUMP sought the same remedy from both Wiggins and Fox Williams: £40m in lost royalties, plus £10m in damages and £5m in loss of future revenues, totalling £55m each.

Despite being lengthy and detailed, the judge described BUMP’s pleadings as “unreasonably vague, especially in terms of the way causation and loss and damage are pleaded, if they are at all”.

He stated that there was “no prospect” that the Court would find Fox Williams in breach of its contractual or tortious duties at trial. Furthermore, the evidence that BUMP claimed the firm should have presented to the Court would not have altered the outcome of the proceedings.

The Judge noted that there was “a real risk that Fox Williams will incur unnecessary expense in defending these allegations if this claim continues”. Also, given that the Claimant was a dormant company, the law firm would not be able to recover its costs.

Wiggin, on the other hand, was in a stronger position as it did not owe BUMP any duties. The Judge stated:

BUMP had levelled:

Deputy Master Linwood has stated that there was “no factual or evidential underpinning” for the allegations that Mr Banner had lodged with the SRA in “what can only be described as a campaign” against the law firms.

He expressed his satisfaction that due to the vexatious nature of the claimant’s case; he would dismiss it as an abuse of process.

The Judge further noted that, in any event, the claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980.

He ordered BUMP to pay over £110,000 in costs on an indemnity basis. He instructed the defendants’ lawyers to include a paragraph in their orders for approval stating that the case was completely without merit against both Fox Williams and Wiggin, as it was entirely devoid of merit and was abusive.