Williams v Fairbairn & Ors

The claim against the first defendant fails because no recoverable loss was suffered; the claim against the second defendant fails because no duty of care was owed to the claimant as opposing counsel.

Parties: Claimant: Christopher Williams; First Defendant: Rebecca Fairbairn; Second Defendant: Richard Tyson; Third Defendant: John Stevens
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 26 April 2006
Procedural Posture: Civil / Application for Striking Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome: Summary judgment for the first and second defendants; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics: Duty of Care, Summary Judgment, Striking Out, Consent Orders, Ancillary Relief

Tort Law Professional Negligence Duty of Care Summary Judgment Striking Out Consent Orders Ancillary Relief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Christopher Williams

Claimant

Rebecca Fairbairn

First Defendant

Richard Tyson

Second Defendant

John Stevens

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Striking Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the first defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the claimant in drafting the consent order
2 Whether the second defendant owed any duty of care to the claimant
3 Whether any breach caused recoverable loss to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the first and second defendants; claim dismissed.

Orders

Summary judgment entered for Rebecca Fairbairn and Richard Tyson against Christopher Williams.
Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of the Particulars of Claim struck out.