In a recent High Court ruling, a considerably high professional negligence claim against a prominent Birmingham law firm has been dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred.
Background
The case revolves around Ellen Kay, who brought a £1.274 million claim against Martineau Johnson (now known as Shakespeare Martineau). Kay claimed the firm had failed to provide proper guidance during her 2008 divorce settlement negotiations.
Kay’s claim challenged the solicitors’ recommendation for a ‘clean break’ settlement, which included:
- funds obtained from the sale of a previous family home,
- £4,000 lump payment for marital support, and
- 80% of potential proceeds from a separate claim against builders.
The settlement prevented any future rights to ongoing maintenance, capital, or pension provision.
The claimant, who has experience as a judge, contended that the advice to agree to a clean break was negligent. Furthermore, she alleged inadequate counsel regarding evidence, strategy, settlement options, and funding options in the ancillary relief proceedings.
The firm strongly denied all allegations, asserting that its advice concerning the settlement was ‘perfectly reasonable’. The firm also stressed that its retainer with Kay concluded in 2009, arguing that the three-year limitation period under Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 had commenced by the time of Kay’s dis-instruction.
His Honour Judge Russen KC, presiding over the case, determined that Kay had acquired the requisite knowledge to trigger the limitation period by the end of 2009 at the latest. The judge stated:
“Even if that had not been the case, my finding would have been one of constructive trigger knowledge by no later than the end of 2018.”
This ruling shows how vitally important limitation periods are within professional negligence claims. This case serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of the need for clear communication with clients about their rights and the time constraints on potential future claims.
The case also highlights the complexities surrounding divorce settlements and the long-term implications of ‘clean break’ agreements. Law firms advising on such matters should ensure comprehensive documentation of their advice and the client’s understanding of the settlement terms.
Comment
This judgment shows how important it is for clients to act promptly when they believe they have the grounds for a professional negligence claim, we can see from the above case that delaying your claim can lead to you losing the right to pursue legal action.
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