Bournemouthand Sixth Bournemouthand

FormLaw
PooleCollege PooleCollege

ChangeText
TextOnly Privacy&cookies
Size

Casesbarristersand
solicitors

Home|Dictionary|Pastpapers|Cases|Modules|
Examdates|NationalExamResults|What'snew?
Search

|Legalprofessionlecturenotes,here|

AbsevSmith[1986]CA
BachevEssexCC(2000)CA
BoardmanvPhipps[1967]HL
ClarksonvGilbert[2000]
CopelandvSmith[2000]CA
DvS[1997]CA
DonovanvGwentoys[1990]HL
EdmondsvLawson.(2000)(CA)
FostervAlfredTruman(afirm)
(2003)QBD
HallvSiminos[2000]HL
HesfordvBarCouncil(1999)
JonathanParkerJ
McKenzievMcKenzie[1970]CA
MoyvPettmannSmith(AFirm)
&Anor(2005)HL
RvBowCountyCourtexp
Pelling[1999]CA
 ReaSolicitor[1974]CA
RondelvWorsley[1957]HL
RossvCaunters[1979]Megarry
VC
RougemontvPilbrow(1999)CA
SaifAlivSydneyMitchell[1978]
HL
SallyClarkTimes,May25,2001
ThaiTradingvTaylor(1998)CA
WallersteinervMoir(No.2)
[1975]CA
WhitevJones[1995]HL
WintlevNye[1959]HL

AbsevSmith [Solicitorsbarristersrights
[1986]CA ofaudience]
JudgeLeonardrefusedtoallowan
apologytoreadincourtbya
solicitor,becausehewasnota
barristeroralitigantinperson,
andwasnotanemergency.

Held:Thetrialjudgewascorrect,
rulingupheld.

Bachev [LegalProfessionrightsof
EssexCC audienceEmployment
(2000)CA Tribunalsastatutory
exception]
Cappearedbeforeanemployment
tribunalrepresentedbyalay
person.Therepresentative
persistedinraisingirrelevant
matterssothetribunaldirectedC
torepresentherself.

Held:Thereisastatutoryrightfor
 apartytoberepresentedinan
employmenttribunalbyaperson
(qualifiedorlay)ofhisorher
choice.Thetribunalcaninsiston
properbehaviour,butcannot
restricttheexerciseofthisright.

Boardmanv [Solicitorsrelationshipwith
Phipps clientsisfiduciary]
[1967]HL Dthesolicitortotrusteeswhoheld
ablockofsharesinacompany.To
improvethecompany'sfinancial
position,Dboughtfurthershares
whichproducedaprofitforthe
beneficiariesofthetrust.

Held:Dheldhissharesona
constructivetrust,sincethe
informationandtheopportunityto
purchasethemhadcometoDby
virtueofhisposition.
Dhadactedentirelyingoodfaith,
andthebeneficiarieshadnot
sufferedanylossbyhisaction,
equityinsiststhatthosewhomake
useofafiduciarypositiontomake
aprofitshouldbeliabletoaccount
forthatprofit.

Clarksonv [Rightsofaudiencenon
Gilbert lawyershusbandforwife
[2000]CA strictrulesinfamily
proceedingsshouldnotapply
toacloserelatives]
Cafoundermemberof
psychotherapiststrainingand
accreditationorganisationwas
suspendedbytheorganisation.C
allegedconspiracyandinducement
tobreachcontracts
ThehusbandoftheCwishedto
representhiswife.Hehad
completedacademicand
vocationaltrainingforthebarbut
hadnotbeencalled,andsohadno
rightsofaudience.LordWoolf
distinguishedthiscaseonitsfacts
fromtheDrPellingsaga(seeDv
S),whereDrPellingregularly
representedmenwhowanted
accesstotheirchildren.By
regularlysoactingDrPelling
bypassedthelegislative
framework.

Thehusbandarguedthatthere
weretwogroundswhyheshould
begrantedrightsofaudience:
first,theclaimant'sillhealth(an
anginaattack)andsecondly,her
lackofmeans.

"Nowthatlegalaidis
notavailableasreadily
asitwasinthepast
meansthatthereare
goingtobesituations
wherelitigantsare
forcedtobring
proceedingsinperson
whentheywillneed
assistance.However,if
theyarelitigantsin
persontheymust,in
myjudgment,establish
whytheyneedsome
otherpersonwhois
notqualifiedtoappear
asanadvocateontheir
behalf.Intheordinary
wayitwillbeforthem
tosatisfythecourtthat
thatisappropriate.If
somebody'shealth
doesnot,ormaynot,
enablethemtoconduct
proceedings
themselves,andifthey
lackmeans,thoseare
thesortof
circumstancesthatcan
justifyacourtsaying
thattheyshouldhave
somebodywhocanact
asanadvocateontheir
behalf.
Iregarditasthe
obligationofsomeone
whowishestohavean
unqualifiedadvocateto
appearforthem,to
makeoutacasefor
thistobedone...Inthe
normalwayitshould
befortheclaimantto
dothat...Sothecourt
saw(C)(Professor
Clarkson)inaprivate
roomwhenshewas
able,inthepresence
ofcounseland
solicitorsforthe
defendants,andinthe
presenceofher
husband,toexplainto
uspersonallyher
reasonsforwantingto
havetheassistanceof
herhusband.She
havingdonethat,my
conclusionhereisthat
thisappealshouldbe
allowed.

Iamsatisfiedthat
therewouldbea
dangerofProfessor
Clarksonbeing
deprivedofherrightto
havethecase
conductedbeforethe
 courtsinawaywhich
wouldenableher
claimstobe
investigatedifshedid
nothavetheassistance
ofherhusbandasan
advocateOnthat
basisIwouldallowthe
appeal."

Copelandv [Barristersprofessionalcode
Smith[2000] actionbyBarCouncil]
CA Cclaimedcompensationfollowing
aroadaccident.Inapreliminary
hearingtheissueofwhetherhis
claimwasoutoftimewas
discussed.Neitherbarristerdrew
thejudge'sdecisiontoadecision
oftheCourtofAppealthatwould
havesettledthematter
conclusively.Thecasehad
appearedintheWeeklyLaw
Reportsfourmonthsbeforethe
hearing.

Held:Thebarristersdidnot
dischargetheirdutyproperlyto
thecourtinthattheyappearedto
beunawareoftheexistenceof
thatauthority.
Itisthedutyofanadvocateto
drawthejudge'sattentionto
authoritieswhichareinpoint,even
iftheyareadversetothat
advocate'scase.

DvS[1997] [Barristers,solicitorsLay
CA Representativesrightsof
audience]
Dhadbeenexcludedfromthe
homehesharedwithhispartner
andchildren.Heaskedtobe
representedbyDrPelling,a
leadingmemberofFamiliesNeed
 Fathersapressuregroup.Dr
Pellingwasnotlegallyqualifiedbut
hadconsiderableexperienceofthis
areaoflawandchargedabout
onetenthasmuchasasolicitor.

Held:Refusingtoexerciseits
discretiontograntDrPellinga
rightofaudiencethecourtcould
seeconsiderableargumentstothe
effectthatthelawasitnow
existedwasinappropriateand
shouldberelaxed,butthespiritof
theActwasclearlyagainstany
generalrelaxationatpresent.

Dlost(seeRvBowCountyCourt
expartePelling)

Donovanv [Solicitorsdutytotheir
Gwentoys clients]
[1990]HL Dsolicitorsfailedtoactquickly
enoughforCwhohadanegligence
claim,andshefailedtorecover
damages.

Held:Theotherpartywouldbein
difficultyifaskedtorespondtoa
sixyearoldclaimwhichtheyhad
nochancetoinvestigate
Actionwasthereforestruckout,
butCmighthaveaclaimin
negligenceagainsthersolicitorfor
failingtoactwithinthelimitation
period.

Edmondsv [LegalPersonnelBarristers
Lawson. MinimumwagePupillage]
(2000)(CA) D,theheadofabarristers'
chambers,"employed"apupil
barrister.DarguedthatC's
acceptanceofanunpaidpupillage
wasnotabindingapprenticeship
andthatCwasthereforenota
 workerentitledtothenational
minimumwage.Dsaidthe
arrangementwaseducationalin
nature,notcommercial,andthatit
wasnotenforceableduetoalack
ofconsideration.

Held:Cwasnotanapprenticenor
a"worker"withinthemeaningof
theNationalMinimumWageAct
1998,becausetherehadbeenno
expectationuponhertodoany
workforDordoanythingother
thanfurtherherowntraining.But
abindingcontractdidexist.

Dwon.

Fosterv [Legalpersonnelsolicitors
Alfred andbarristerssolicitorcan
Truman(a relyonadviceofQCunlessit
firm)(2003) isobviouslywrong]
QBD Dahighstreetsolicitoractedfor
MrsFosterwhowassuingaformer
firmofsolicitors,theactionfailed
becauseDfailedtorealiseitwas
timebarred.

Held:Ahighstreetsolicitorsduty
ofcaredidnotrequirethemto
examinedocumentswhichhad
beenavailabletoleadingcounsel
(QC)inordertoascertainthe
reliabilityofcounselsopinion,and
theywereentitledtorelyonthat
advicewithouttakingsuchsteps.
Wheresuchadvicewasincorrecta
causeofactiondidnotlieagainst
thesolicitor.
Muchwoulddependonthe
complexityofthematterinhand,
themorecomplexthematter,the
greaterreliabilitycouldbeplaced
ontheadvicereceived.Itwas
 importantthatsolicitorswereable
tomakeuseofaspecialistbar,
andindoingsothepublicinterest
wasserved.

HallvSimons [Barristersimmunityagainst
[2000]HL beingsuedinnegligencelost]
Thiscasewaspartofthree
conjoinedappealsheardatthe
sametimebecausetheyinvolved
thesamepointoflaw,namely
immunityfromsuitbysolicitors
andbarristers.
Thecaseinvolvednegligent
advice.

Held:RondelvWorsleyhadnot
beenwronglydecidedinitstime,
buttheworldwasdifferentthen.
Thecourtsnowcanstrikeout
claimswhichhavenorealchance
ofsuccess.

Thisisalsothecasewherean
actionappearstobeanabuseof
thelegalprocess.Thisincludes
whichattempttorelitigatethe
firstcase.
Lawyersnottheonlyprofessionals
whohavetobalancetheirdutyto
anindividualclientandacodeof
ethics.

Itisessentialtotheproper
administrationofjusticethat
barristersshouldbepreparedto
defendeventhemostunsavoury
characters,whomightwellwish
theirlawyerstouseallpossible
means,ethicalornot,tosecure
theiracquittal.Thesecharacters
maywishtosueiftheyare
acquittedonappeal.

 Immunityfromsuitremoved
Comment:Theapparentposition
ofadvocateshasbeenalteredby
MoyvPettmannSmith

Hesfordv [Barristersprofessionalcode
BarCouncil actionbyBarCouncil
(1999)TLR conflictbetweenbarristers
Jonathan professionalandparliamentary
ParkerJ duties]
Dabarristerreturnedabriefsohe
couldattendandvoteintheHouse
ofCommons,thisbreachedthe
Bar'sprofessionalcode.

Held:Affirmingthedecisionbut
substitutingareprimandforthe
"whollydisproportionate"three
monthsuspensionoriginally
imposed.

McKenziev [Barristers,solicitorsLay
McKenzie Representativesrightsof
[1970]CA audience]
Ahusbandrepresentedhimselfina
divorcecase.Hisformersolicitors
sentayoungAustralianbarrister
notqualifiedtopractiseinEngland
tositbesidehimandofferadvice.
Thejudgetoldthebarristerhe
mustnottakepartinthecase,so
thebarristerleftthecourt.The
husbandlostsoheappealed.

Held:QuotingfromLord
TenterdenCJ150yearsearlier,
saidthatanyperson,whethera
professionalmanornot,may
attendcourtasafriend,maytake
notes,andmayquietlyoffer
suggestionsandgiveadvice.

Appealallowed

Moyv Barristersimmunityfromsuitof
Pettmann negligence
Smith(A [Barristerslossofimmunity
Firm)&Anor againstbeingsuedin
(2005)HL negligenceweakened]
Abarristerdidnotadviseher
clientofspecificrisksregarding
thesettlementofapersonalinjury
claimatthedoorofthecourt.The
clientreceivedsubstantiallyless
damagesasaresultbecauseofa
proceduraldecisionbythejudge.
Thebarristerjudgedthechances
tobe50/50,butshedidnotgive
thatadvice,norotheradviceshe
couldhavegiven.Shesimplytold
himthatinherjudgmenthewould
beatthepaymentintocourtthat
isgetmorecompensationthan
wasoffered,thoughshealsotold
himthathecouldtaketheoffer
andavoidtherisks.

Held:Thebarristerwasnot
negligent.
Theprinciplethatanadvocateis
liabletohisclientforprofessional
negligenceinArthurJSHallv
Simons[2002]HLshouldnotstifle
themannerinwhichtheyconduct
litigationandadvisetheirclients.

Thismightleadtodefensive
advocacy,wherebarristerswould
hedgetheiropinionswith
qualificationsandbereluctantto
giveclientstheadvicewhichthey
requireintheirbestinterests.

Whilstadoctor'spatienthasa
righttobeappropriatelywarnedof
risks,abarrister'sclientonlyhas
arightto"clearandreadily
understoodadvice",notthe
reasoningbehindit.

LadyHalesaidthatthecourts
"havenotyetdevelopedaclear
setofprinciplesgoverningthe
termsinwhichanadvocate's
adviceshouldbegiven".

Barristerwon

RvBow [Barristers,solicitorsLay
CountyCourt Representativesrightsof
expPelling audience]
[1999]CA Fappliedforacourtorderin
respectofhischildrenandwished
tobeaccompaniedatahearingin
chambersbyDrPellingactingasa
McKenziefriend,butDrPellingwas
refusedaccess.DrPelling's
applicationforjudicialreviewwas
dismissed,andhisappealfailed.

Held:Inproceedingsopentothe
public,whetherincourtorin
chambers,alitigantinperson
shouldbeallowedtheassistanceof
aMcKenziefriendunlessthejudge
issatisfiedthatfairnessandthe
interestsofjusticedonotrequire
it.
Thesameistrueinprinciplein
privateproceedings,butherethe
natureoftheproceedingsmight
makesuchassistanceundesirable.
Forexample,aparticularfriend
mightseektoadoptanadversarial
approachinappropriateinfamily
proceedings,andapersonlikeDr
Pellingfrequentlyactedasa
McKenziefriendmightbetempted
toconductthecasehimselfrather
thanremainintheroleofan
assistant.

DrPellingexcluded
ReaSolicitor [Solicitorssupervisionby
[1974]CA LawSocietydutytoclients]
Twosolicitorsacceptedsubstantial
legaciesunderwillstheyhad
draftedwithoutfirstensuringthat
theirclientsreceivedindependent
advice.

Held:Itisnotenough,merelyto
advisetheclienttoobtainsuch
advice:asolicitorinthisposition
mustinsistthattheclientis
independentlyadvisedandmust
declinetoactiftheclientrefuses.

Solicitorsstruckoffbythe
DisciplinaryCommitteeofthe
LawSociety.

Rondelv [Barristersimmunitytosuit]
Worsley Ccausedgrievousbodilyharmand
[1967]HL atcourtgavea"dockbrief"toa
barristerD.Cwasconvicted,but
complainedthatDhadnotasked
allthequestionshehadsuggested,
andhadnotchallengedthe
prosecution'sstatementthatthe
injurieswereinflictedwithaknife.

Held:C'scivilactionfor
negligencecouldnotbesustained:
abarrister'simmunitywas
justifiedbypublicpolicy.

Clost
Comment:Thiscasenow
overruledbyHallvSimons.

Rossv [Solicitorsdutytotheir
Caunters clients]
[1979]ChDiv Dasolicitorpreparedawillfora
MegarryVC clientandsentittohimfor
signature.Dfailedtowarnthe
 clientthathissignatureshouldnot
bewitnessedbythespouseofa
beneficiary,andsubsequentlydid
notnoticethatthishadactually
happened.

Held:Dliabletopaydamagesto
thedisappointedbeneficiary.

Rougemontv [Solicitorsrelationshipwith
Pilbrow legalexecutives]
(1999)CA DaclientofCafirmofsolicitors
askedforanappointmentbutwas
seenbyawomanwhowasneither
asolicitornoraqualifiedlegal
executive.Dwasnotawareof
this.Dsubsequentlyrefusedtopay
C'sbill.

Held:TheadviceDreceivedhad
beenuptothestandardexpected
ofacompetentsolicitor,butthis
wasnotenough.Dhadcontracted
forlegalservicesprovidedbya
solicitorwhichhedidnotreceive,
thereforeChadfailedtoperform
theircontract.

Dwon

SaifAliv [Barristersimmunitytosuit
Sydney nowoverruled]
Mitchell Dabarristergavenegligentadvice
[1978]HL toCconcerningastowhoshould
bejoinedasdefendantinacivil
action.

Held:Theimmunityconferredby
RondelvWorsleyextendstopre
trialworkifandonlyifitisso
intimatelyconnectedwiththe
conductofthecaseincourtasto
amounttoapreliminarydecision
aboutit.

Cwon

SallyClark [SolicitorsregulationbyLaw
TheTimes, Society]
25thMay Asolicitorconvictedofmurdering
2001 hertwosons,wassuspended
indefinitelybytheSolicitors'
DisciplinaryTribunalafterhearing
herappealonvideofromprison.It
isbelievedtobethefirsttimethe
tribunalhadnotstruckoffa
solicitorforsuchaseriousoffence.

SubsequentlyMsClarkwascleared
ofbothmurdersbytheCourtof
Appeal.

ThaiTrading [LegalAidlawfulnessof
vTaylor CFAs]
(1998)CA Csuppliedacarvedbed.Dpaid
thedepositbutnomore,claiming
thebedwasunsatisfactory.Csued
forthebalancedue.D
counterclaimedforthereturnof
herdeposit.Dwasrepresentedby
asolicitorherhusbandona"no
winnofee"basis,andwon.C
appealedagainsttheorderfor
costs.

Held:Affirmingtheorder,and
distinguishingWallersteinervMoir
therecanbenoobjectiontoan
arrangementwherebyasolicitor
agreestoforegohiscostsifhe
loses,aslongashedoesnotseek
torecovermorethanhisordinary
profitcostsanddisbursementsif
hewins.

Wallersteiner [Lawyersearningspositionof
vMoir(No.2) CFAs]
[1975]CA Ddefendedacomplexcasefor
 over10years.Chadbeenrefused
legalaidbecausehestoodtogain
verylittlefromtheaction,andhad
littlemoney.
Hesoughtscontingencyfee
arrangementwithhislawyers.

HeldAnarrangementwhereby
thelawyerispaidmorefor
winningthanforlosing,isillegal
ascontrarytopublicpolicy.C's
problemscouldbemetbygiving
himanindemnityagainstthe
companyforanycostsnot
ultimatelymetbyD.

Whitev [Solicitorsdutytotheir
Jones[1995] clients]
HL Dasolicitorwasaskedtoprepare
awill,butnegligentlyfailedtodo
sobeforethetestatordied.Two
claimantswhoshouldhave
receivedlegaciesunderthewill
suedDinnegligence.

Held:Hadtheerrorbeen
discoveredbeforethetestator's
deathitcouldeasilyhavebeenput
rightand(whetheritwasornot)
noactionwouldlie,butherethere
wasnooneelseabletotake
action.

Dlost

WintlevNye [Solicitorsrelationshipwith
[1959]HL clients]
Dasolicitorreceivedmorethan
100,000underacomplexwillhe
hadpreparedforanelderlylady.

Held:Whiletherewasnolaw
preventingsuchathing,itcreated
 agravesuspicion.Dwasunderan
exceptionallyheavyburdenof
proofwhichhehadnotmetto
showthathehadnotunduly
influencedthetestatrix.

Thewillwassetaside.

20002008MSouperCopyright
PleasevisittheFREE
reserved|disclaimer
HungerSite
LawWeblog|Contactus|