Luke v Kingsley Smith & Company & Ors [2003] EWHC 1559 (QB) (23 June 2003)

Luke v Kingsley Smith & Company & Ors [2003] EWHC 1559 (QB) (23 June 2003)

The court held that, on the evidence and pleadings as they stand, there is at least a triable issue that the alleged negligence of Wansbroughs and Miss Addy could have contributed to the same indivisible loss as that caused by Kingsley Smith, namely the claimant's lost chance in the original action. Therefore, the Part 20 claims for contribution cannot be summarily dismissed and should proceed to trial.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1559
Parties
Claimant: William James Luke; 1st Defendant: Kingsley Smith & Company; 2nd Defendant: Wansbroughs; 3rd Defendant: Caroline Addy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim and Part 20 Contribution Claims / Hearing of Summary Judgment Applications Under CPR Part 24 on Part 20 Claims
Outcome
Applications for summary judgment by Wansbroughs and Miss Addy dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Professional Negligence by Solicitors and Counsel, Summary Judgment, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Strike Out Applications, Causation of Loss
Tort Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Contribution Between Tortfeasors Professional Negligence by Solicitors and Counsel Summary Judgment Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Strike Out Applications +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William James Luke

Claimant

Kingsley Smith & Company

1st Defendant

Wansbroughs

2nd Defendant

Caroline Addy

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim and Part 20 Contribution Claims / Hearing of Summary Judgment Applications Under CPR Part 24 on Part 20 Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 20 claims for contribution against Wansbroughs and Miss Addy fall within the scope of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, i.e., whether they are potentially liable for the 'same damage' as Kingsley Smith.
  2. 2 Whether there is a triable issue as to whether Wansbroughs and Miss Addy were negligent and caused loss to the claimant.
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted to Wansbroughs and Miss Addy on the Part 20 claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the evidence and pleadings as they stand, there is at least a triable issue that the alleged negligence of Wansbroughs and Miss Addy could have contributed to the same indivisible loss as that caused by Kingsley Smith, namely the claimant's lost chance in the original action. Therefore, the Part 20 claims for contribution cannot be summarily dismissed and should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary judgment by Wansbroughs and Miss Addy dismissed.

Orders

  • Stay on the Part 20 claims lifted.
  • Part 20 claims to proceed to trial.