Cheri-Ann Vincent & Dr Dean Burnett v Andrew Lucas (t/a AG Lucas Co.)

Articles

14/09/2021

Francesca O’Neill successful in appeal against a decision of the lower court that the usual rule under CPR r.46.1 should be followed even in circumstances where the opposition to the application was arguably unreasonable, and where the manner of opposing it had not been considered. The prospective Claimants in a professional negligence claim against their former solicitor were denied access to their solicitor’s file of papers, with the solicitor claiming a lien over them. Despite offering to preserve the lien by way of an undertaking, the solicitor refused access.

An application for pre-action disclosure was successful, but the prospective Claimants were ordered to pay the costs of the application in the usual way. The prospective claimants appealed. The lower court had erred in not finding that the prospective Defendants had acted unreasonably and should have made a different costs order: either that the prospective Claimants should have their costs paid or that there should be no order as to costs. Examples of unreasonable conduct and a continuing failure to follow the pre-action protocol for professional negligence had been argued below, but not taken into consideration.

HHJ Beard agreed that the lower court had failed to give reasons for the decision which showed that those considerations had been properly factored into the exercise of the discretion. He remitted the matter back to the lower court for a reasoned decision on the costs point and awarded the appellants their costs of the appeal, which was strenuously resisted.

Francesca was instructed by Gelbergs.

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Dekinar: Understanding the New Fixed Costs Regime for Cross-Border Claims

In this webinar, Thomas Yarrow and Anirudh Mandagere will take a look at the new fixed costs regime with a specific eye on its impacts on litigation with a cross-border element. Thomas and Anirudh will also answer any questions you may have on the issues…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)