Gabriel v Little & Ors

Gabriel v Little & Ors

The Court of Appeal held Mr Little did not make fraudulent misrepresentations, no Quistclose trust was created, and neither Mr Little nor High Tech were liable for dishonest assistance or knowing receipt. BPE Solicitors breached their duty of care by failing to inform Mr Gabriel of the true purpose of the loan, but the losses suffered did not fall within the scope of BPE's duty, as the risks were commercial and not legal. The appeal against BPE's liability was allowed, and all other appeals dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Richard Gabriel; Respondent/defendant: Mr Peter Little; Respondent/defendant: High Tech Design & Build Limited; Respondent/defendant: Whiteshore Associates Ltd; Respondent/defendant: BPE Solicitors; Respondent/defendant: BPE Solicitors LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Little appeal dismissed; BPE cross-appeal dismissed; BPE appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Quistclose Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Trust, Professional Negligence, Knowing Receipt, Money Had and Received, Restitution, Scope of Solicitor's Duty, Contributory Negligence
Contract Law Trusts Law Professional Negligence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Quistclose Trust Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Trust Knowing Receipt +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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Richard Gabriel

Appellant/claimant

Mr Peter Little

Respondent/defendant

High Tech Design & Build Limited

Respondent/defendant

Whiteshore Associates Ltd

Respondent/defendant

BPE Solicitors

Respondent/defendant

BPE Solicitors LLP

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Little made fraudulent misrepresentations to Mr Gabriel
  2. 2 Whether a Quistclose trust was created by the facility letter
  3. 3 Whether Mr Little and High Tech were liable for dishonest assistance or knowing receipt

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held Mr Little did not make fraudulent misrepresentations, no Quistclose trust was created, and neither Mr Little nor High Tech were liable for dishonest assistance or knowing receipt. BPE Solicitors breached their duty of care by failing to inform Mr Gabriel of the true purpose of the loan, but the losses suffered did not fall within the scope of BPE's duty, as the risks were commercial and not legal. The appeal against BPE's liability was allowed, and all other appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Little appeal dismissed; BPE cross-appeal dismissed; BPE appeal allowed.

Orders

  • No liability for Mr Little or High Tech to Mr Gabriel.
  • No Quistclose trust or breach of fiduciary duty found.