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, by holding themselves out as legal professionals and entering into a contract for legal services with the claimant, owed a duty of care equivalent to that of a competent legal service professional. They breached that duty by providing misleading information about their qualifications, failing to advise on key aspects of the litigation, drafting particulars and schedules of loss without evidential basis, failing to advise on settlement or ADR, and not ensuring compliance with court directions. These breaches caused the claimant to lose the opportunity to properly pursue his clinical negligence claim, resulting in financial loss. The claim was not statute-barred as the cause...

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1098 (QB)
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 / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant with reduction for contributory fault.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care of Unregulated Legal Advisors, Contractual Obligations in Legal Services, Limitation Periods in Negligence, Mc Kenzie Friend Liability, Damages and Causation, Strike Out Applications, Costs Orders
Professional Negligence Contract Law Civil Procedure Duty of Care of Unregulated Legal Advisors Contractual Obligations in Legal Services Limitation Periods in Negligence Mc Kenzie Friend Liability Damages and Causation +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 6 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 / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Status and obligations of the defendants in providing legal services
  3. 3 Existence and terms of a contract between claimant and defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, by holding themselves out as legal professionals and entering into a contract for legal services with the claimant, owed a duty of care equivalent to that of a competent legal service professional. They breached that duty by providing misleading information about their qualifications, failing to advise on key aspects of the litigation, drafting particulars and schedules of loss without evidential basis, failing to advise on settlement or ADR, and not ensuring compliance with court directions. These breaches caused the claimant to lose the opportunity to properly pursue his clinical negligence claim, resulting in financial loss. The claim was not statute-barred as the cause...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; judgment for the claimant with reduction for contributory fault.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay damages to the claimant, subject to reduction for contributory negligence.
  • Defendants to pay claimant's costs, subject to assessment.