Williams v Thompson Leatherdale (a firm)& Anor [2008] EWHC 2574 (QB) (10 November 2008)

Williams v Thompson Leatherdale (a firm)& Anor [2008] EWHC 2574 (QB) (10 November 2008)

Mr Francis was negligent in failing to advise Mrs Williams of the real possibility that the pending House of Lords decision in White v White could benefit her, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to delay settlement. However, Mrs Williams failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that, if properly advised, she would have delayed settlement and obtained a better outcome. Thompson Leatherdale were not negligent as they were not aware of the White decision before the consent order was made and acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2574
Parties
Claimant: Carol Christine Williams; First Defendant: Thompson Leatherdale; Second Defendant: Nicholas Francis QC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Divorce Settlements, Duty of Care, Consent Orders, Financial Provision, Legal Advice Standards
Family Law Professional Negligence Ancillary Relief Divorce Settlements Duty of Care Consent Orders Financial Provision Legal Advice Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Christine Williams

Claimant

Thompson Leatherdale

First Defendant

Nicholas Francis QC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Francis was negligent in failing to advise Mrs Williams of the possible implications of the pending House of Lords decision in White v White for her divorce settlement.
  2. 2 Whether Thompson Leatherdale were negligent in failing to withdraw the consent order or advise Mrs Williams post-White v White decision.
  3. 3 Whether any such negligence caused Mrs Williams loss.

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Francis was negligent in failing to advise Mrs Williams of the real possibility that the pending House of Lords decision in White v White could benefit her, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to delay settlement. However, Mrs Williams failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that, if properly advised, she would have delayed settlement and obtained a better outcome. Thompson Leatherdale were not negligent as they were not aware of the White decision before the consent order was made and acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against Mr Francis dismissed
  • Claim against Thompson Leatherdale dismissed