Latest English solicitors’ liability newsletter

Here’s the latest from Reynolds Porter Chamberalain. Contents this edition include:

The High Court considers the scope of a solicitor’s duty of care in his dealings with an unsophisticated client

In Phelps v (1) Stewarts and (2) Dinsmore [2007] EWHC 1561 (Ch) the Court rejected a solicitor’s argument that her retainer was of a limited nature, given the complexity of the matter concerned, and the fact that the client was unsophisticated.

The High Court considers whether the removal of advocates’ immunity from suit is of retrospective effect

In Awoyomi v Radford [2007] EWHC 1671, the High Court held that the removal of advocates’ immunity from suit was retrospective and that accordingly a claim against two barristers was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal exercises its duty to say that the judge applied the law to the facts wrongly, regarding extent retainer

In Stone Heritage Developments Limited and Others v Davis Blank Furniss (a firm) [2007] EWCACiv 765, the Court of Appeal held that the judge at first instance had erred in his finding that the defendant solicitors were negligent in failing to advise the claimant of one risk but not negligent in not advising of a similar risk.  The solicitors had not been negligent at all.

See also:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *