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 White decision could benefit her, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to decide whether to suspend negotiations. However, on the evidence, Mrs Williams would not have delayed settlement even if properly advised, so no loss was caused by the negligence. Thompson Leatherdale were not negligent as they were not aware of the White decision before the consent order and acted reasonably.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2574 (QB)
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 Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Divorce Settlements, Duty of Care, Barrister Negligence, Consent Orders
Family Law Professional Negligence Ancillary Relief Divorce Settlements Duty of Care Barrister Negligence Consent Orders

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 Trial, Judgment

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
  2. 2 Whether Thompson Leatherdale were negligent in failing to act on the White decision before the consent order was made
  3. 3 Whether Mrs Williams would have obtained a better settlement if properly advised

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Francis was negligent in failing to advise Mrs Williams of the real possibility that the White decision could benefit her, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to decide whether to suspend negotiations. However, on the evidence, Mrs Williams would not have delayed settlement even if properly advised, so no loss was caused by the negligence. Thompson Leatherdale were not negligent as they were not aware of the White decision before the consent order and acted reasonably.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

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