26/07/2022
In Daniel Khan v Taylor Haldane Barlex Solicitors, the Claimant brought a claim in professional negligence against his former representatives alleging that they had failed to properly advise him as to the terms of a restraining order precluding contact with his children after he received a criminal conviction. This was disputed, and the Claimant failed to provide any evidence of subsequent court orders which might have clarified his position.
He was warned that his failure rendered his claim susceptible to an application for strike out and/or summary judgment but he took no steps either to provide evidence in support of his contentions or to answer the questions posed by the defendant firm. As a result, the defendant firm applied to strike out —successfully, and with an award of costs on the indemnity basis.
The Judge found that his conduct, in repeatedly failing to provide answers to questions so departing from the normal course of litigation that it was reasonable to assess costs without regard to the claimant’s representations.
Francesca O’Neill represented the successful applicant, instructed by Sarah Irwin of Weightmans LLP.
They join us from Great James Street Chambers. Nick is an experienced leading junior, noted for his particular ability to cut through complex issues of fact and law in order to get to the heart of the case. Nick’s practice is in defending clients…
This week Anirudh Mandagere has written a longer briefing on the use by lawyers of artificial intelligence and how to avoid being accused of negligence (it’s not as straightforward as you may think); the link to his briefing is here. Meanwhile Sarah Prager KC draws…
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce have produced a Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms. Given that very few cases have reached the courts, the Legal Statement provides much-needed guidance to legal advisors and representatives. In this article Anirudh Mandagere sets out the key aspects of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR