Wright v Troy Lucas (a firm) & Anor [2019] EWHC 1098 (QB) (15 March 2019)

Wright v Troy Lucas (a firm) & Anor [2019] EWHC 1098 (QB) (15 March 2019)

The defendants held themselves out as possessing professional legal skill and entered into a contract with the claimant to provide legal services. Their conduct fell below the standard expected of competent legal service professionals, including misleading the claimant about their qualifications, failing to advise on key issues, drafting pleadings without evidential foundation, and failing to advise on settlement and ADR. The claim is not statute-barred as the cause of action accrued with the strike-out application and order. The defendants are liable for breach of contract and negligence.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1098
Parties
Claimant: Paul Wright; First Defendant: Troy Lucas (A Firm); Second Defendant: George Rusz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; defendants found liable for professional negligence and breach of contract.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Mc Kenzie Friend Liability, Limitation Periods, Contract Formation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Strike Out Applications
Professional Negligence Contract Law Civil Procedure Duty of Care Mc Kenzie Friend Liability Limitation Periods Contract Formation Breach of Contract +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Wright

Claimant

Troy Lucas (A Firm)

First Defendant

George Rusz

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is any part of the claim statute-barred?
  2. 2 What was the status of the defendants in the conduct of the underlying claim?
  3. 3 Was there a contract between the claimant and the defendants and what were its terms?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants held themselves out as possessing professional legal skill and entered into a contract with the claimant to provide legal services. Their conduct fell below the standard expected of competent legal service professionals, including misleading the claimant about their qualifications, failing to advise on key issues, drafting pleadings without evidential foundation, and failing to advise on settlement and ADR. The claim is not statute-barred as the cause of action accrued with the strike-out application and order. The defendants are liable for breach of contract and negligence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; defendants found liable for professional negligence and breach of contract.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to claimant for losses caused by their negligence and breach of contract.
  • Defendants to pay claimant's costs.