English v English & Anor [2010] EWHC 2058 (Ch) (03 August 2010)

English v English & Anor [2010] EWHC 2058 (Ch) (03 August 2010)

The claimant failed to prove that the second defendant was negligent, as the evidence supported that the solicitor acted in accordance with the claimant's instructions and provided the advice recorded. The claimant, by her conduct and with full knowledge, ratified the forged transactions and is bound by them; thus, she is not entitled to restitution from the third defendant.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2058 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Jean Sarah English; First Defendant: Colin English; First Defendant: Yvonne English; Second Defendant: Hodge Jones and Allen (a firm); Third Defendant: Swift Advances Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (professional Negligence, Restitution, Constructive Trust) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Ratification, Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Professional Negligence, Restitution for Mistake, Solicitor's Duties, Agency Law
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Restitution Property Law Trusts and Equity Forgery Ratification Estoppel +4 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Sarah English

Claimant

Colin English

First Defendant

Yvonne English

First Defendant

Hodge Jones and Allen (a firm)

Second Defendant

Swift Advances Plc

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (professional Negligence, Restitution, Constructive Trust) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant solicitors were professionally negligent in advising the claimant regarding a secured loan and legal charge.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to restitution from the third defendant for monies paid to redeem a charge registered as a result of forgery.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant ratified or is estopped from denying the validity of the loan and charge documents executed by forgery.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove that the second defendant was negligent, as the evidence supported that the solicitor acted in accordance with the claimant's instructions and provided the advice recorded. The claimant, by her conduct and with full knowledge, ratified the forged transactions and is bound by them; thus, she is not entitled to restitution from the third defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against the second defendant (Hodge Jones and Allen) dismissed.
  • Claim against the third defendant (Swift Advances Plc) dismissed.