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, it cannot be said that the Part 20 claims for contribution are bound to fail. There is at least a real prospect that the alleged negligence of Kingsley Smith, Wansbroughs, and Miss Addy could have combined to cause the same, single, indivisible damage to the claimant—namely, the lost chance of succeeding in the original action. Therefore, the applications for summary judgment to strike out the Part 20 claims must be refused.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1559 (QB)
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 With Part 20 Contribution Claims / Hearing of Applications for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24 on Part 20 Claims
Outcome
Applications for summary judgment by Wansbroughs and Miss Addy refused.
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Professional Negligence by Solicitors and Counsel, Summary Judgment, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Strike Out Applications, Causation and Loss in Negligence
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 4 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 With Part 20 Contribution Claims / Hearing of Applications for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24 on Part 20 Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 20 claims for contribution by Kingsley Smith against Wansbroughs and by Wansbroughs against Miss Addy fall within the scope of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, i.e., whether they are liable for the 'same damage' as required by the Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a real prospect of success for the contribution claims under CPR Part 24.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the evidence and pleadings as they stand, it cannot be said that the Part 20 claims for contribution are bound to fail. There is at least a real prospect that the alleged negligence of Kingsley Smith, Wansbroughs, and Miss Addy could have combined to cause the same, single, indivisible damage to the claimant—namely, the lost chance of succeeding in the original action. Therefore, the applications for summary judgment to strike out the Part 20 claims must be refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary judgment by Wansbroughs and Miss Addy refused.

Orders

  • Stay on Part 20 claims lifted.
  • Applications for summary judgment by Wansbroughs and Miss Addy dismissed.