A High Court Judge has struck out a damages claim brought against a law firm acting in a negligence case versus other lawyers regarding the purchase of a house dubbed ‘the French castle’.
In the case, Michael Partridge & Anor v Healys LLP, Master Sullivan discovered that the claim ‘currently pleaded’ did not have real prospects of success and saw it as an abuse of process as continuous issues were being handled in the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO).
Michael Partridge & Anor v Healys LLP
Case background
The claim was brought by Michael and Suzette Partridge against Healys LLP for its dealings of a professional negligence claim against their previous solicitors. Those previous lawyers had backed the claimants in a claim regarding the purchase of multi-million-pound Spanish property referred to as the “French Castle.”
Healeys tried to strike out the claim or for summary judgment against Partridge. The latter had claimed how they had paid more than what the property was worth such as paying €8m when it was only worth €4m – €4.5m.
The Court’s decision
The Judge said:
“I…remind myself that the standard of care and skill for a legal professional is that of a reasonably competent practitioner, and if they hold themselves out as a specialist, of a reasonably competent specialist.
The claimant has to prove that any negligence has caused them to lose something of value which is a claim which has real and substantial rather than negligible prospects of success. That can include real and substantial prospects of settlement.
Considering the valuation claim, it was fanciful to suggest [it] would have made any more than a negligible difference to the prospect of a greater settlement than that achieved. Healys had advised the couple to accept the mediation sum of £575,000.
There is in my judgment no real prospect that the claimants will succeed in arguing that there was a loss of a chance of a more significant settlement than that achieved as a result of the consequential loss claim not being advanced because of anything the defendant did or did not do. The contemporaneous documents indicate that the claimants failed to provide the requested evidence required in order to pursue the claim.”
Regarding the termination of CFA, the Judge commented on how the allegation is being determined in the Senior Courts Costs Office, and due to the stage of proceedings, it would seem to be an abuse to let this portion of the claim progress in the King’s Bench Division.
This is because a similar issue cannot be litigated in two separate parts of the High Court at the same time due to the risk of inconsistent judgements, as well as the effect on the administration of justice concerning the allocation of the Court’s resources.
In circumstances where a claimant has a debarral order against them in one forum, it would be wrong to then have them make the same claim in another.
The Judge went on to say that as a result of the termination of the retainer, the pleading that the claimants were unable to get litigation funding is inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents. The Judge accepts the defendant’s submission that the claim for professional payments happened during the course of the defendant’s retainer, to that degree as it is not being handled within the SCCO proceedings, meaning it has no real prospect of success due to it cannot be said that the payments should not have been charged or were just wasted.
Therefore, the Judge summarises that the claim ‘currently pleaded’ does not have real prospects of success and is an abuse of process as it doubles the problems already in the SCCO.
How can we help?
Daniel Brumpton is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team, specialising in professional negligence and commercial litigation. Daniel heads our Commercial Litigation and is recognised by the independently researched legal directory, The Legal 500.
For more information on the subjects discussed in this article, don’t hesitate to get in touch with 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