The High Court has recently handed down judgment in the case of Blower v GH Canfields LLP [2024] EWHC 2763 (Ch). This was a claim against solicitors in which the court had to give careful consideration to the claimant’s case on causation. The claim was dismissed and the judgment stands as a useful reminder of the necessary ingredients for a successful claim.
Mr Blower was made bankrupt in April 2012. In September 2014, proceedings were issued by his trustee in bankruptcy for in excess of £2m against Mr Blower and his family including his wife, Mrs Blower (the claimant), in relation to alleged transactions at an undervalue.
GC Canfields LLP (the defendant firm) was appointed to act for Mr Blower and his family and a mediation with the trustee was arranged in December 2015.
Mr Blower attended the mediation and confirmed that he was authorised to give instructions on behalf of his family. The Blower family also impliedly authorised the defendant to sign on their behalf any deal which Mr Blower was satisfied was in their interests. After 12 hours, the claim settled for £1.5m and a settlement agreement was drawn up. This was to be a global settlement in relation to claims against all members of the Blower family.
Mrs Blower subsequently bought a claim in 2021 on behalf of herself and her daughter, alleging that the defendant firm was negligent in negotiating the settlement. In particular, she argued the defendant did not act in her and her daughter’s best interests, and that this has caused loss.
The High Court dismissed Mrs Blower’s claim on both liability and causation. HHJ Matthews, who heard the case, found the defendant had not been negligent, commenting that “the reasonably competent litigation solicitor would have advised settlement on terms similar to those actually achieved”. Neither was the defendant negligent in taking Mr Blower’s instructions as those of the wider family, none of whom had imposed any limits or “red lines” on what could be agreed, and who had been content to leave all negotiations to Mr Blower and the defendant firm.
Turning to loss and causation, the pleaded case on causation in the Amended Particulars of Claim (which was expanded during closing) was that properly advised, Mrs Blower would not have agreed to the settlement and/or would not have agreed to settle the trustee’s claim for the sum she was committed to by the defendant firm.
The court found that even if the defendant solicitors had been negligent:
We frequently see Letters of Claim or pleadings which have been fired off prematurely, which focus entirely on liability and give no thought to causation. This judgment is a good example of the principle that even where negligence may have been proved on the part of a professional, a claim will not automatically succeed. Causation is a crucial ingredient to a successful negligence claim and the failure to address this on the part of a claimant can be fatal as demonstrated here. This decision is a good reminder that claimants should be pushed to properly particularise their position on causation, as quite simply, no causation, no claim.
For more information, please contact Jo Lewis or Bushra Jalil
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.