Contributors
Following the recent release of the judgment in Blower v GH Canfields LLP, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP has successfully defended a firm of solicitors against a multi-million pound claim concerning the settlement of claims against its clients in underlying bankruptcy proceedings. Tim Barr, Ivan Roots and George Napier at WBD acted for GH Canfields LLP and Jonathan Seitler KC and Lemuel Lucan-Wilson were successful defence counsel.
The underlying claims arose out of bankruptcy proceedings brought against a businessman by his trustee in bankruptcy. The trustee alleged that he had dispersed assets to members of his family to avoid them being available to his creditors. GH Canfields LLP acted for his family members in the defence of those proceedings, which settled at mediation in late 2015.
Some years after the underlying settlement, the businessman's wife brought a professional negligence claim against the firm (including an assigned claim against the firm by her daughter) relating to the allegedly unsatisfactory nature and terms of the settlement.
However, following a two-week trial in June/July 2024, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews held that GH Canfields LLP had not acted negligently, concluding that a reasonably competent solicitor would have:
- Advised on the underlying settlement on terms similar to those actually achieved, and
- Secured instructions on the underlying settlement from the family members in a manner that was similar to the approach adopted by GH Canfields LLP.
The claim also failed on causation/loss grounds because:
- As a matter of factual causation, the Claimant and her daughter would have settled on the same terms as the underlying settlement, even if GH Canfields LLP had provided purportedly better advice, and
- The Claimant had failed to plead what she would have done had the underlying proceedings not settled at mediation in late 2015. Instead, the Claimant sought to argue that GH Canfields LLP was under an evidential burden to show that its advice had not caused her to suffer any loss. However, the Judge held that a Claimant is required to set out a complete case on causation – namely not what would not have happened but for the allegedly negligent advice, but what would have happened. In that regard, the Judge held that the trustee would have continued with his claims against the family members had the settlement at mediation not been achieved, and it had not been shown that the trustee would have settled for a lesser sum.
This judgment is therefore welcome confirmation of the need for a Claimant to plead a complete causation case in a professional negligence claim, and that the claim will fail if the Claimant does not do so.
If you have any queries concerning solicitors' negligence claims, please contact Tim Barr.
