Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (a firm) [2012] EWHC 1000 (Ch) (20 April 2012)

Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (a firm) [2012] EWHC 1000 (Ch) (20 April 2012)

The amendments allowed by the Master could permit a claim for breach of fiduciary duty to succeed on the basis of negligence, not just deliberate conduct. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendments necessarily deprive the defendant of an arguable limitation defence. The Master's order was wrong in so far as it related to the amendments concerning the loans for Units 1-4, and must be set aside to allow the limitation issue to be determined at trial.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1000 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mortgage Express (an unlimited company); Defendant/appellant: Abensons solicitors (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Allowing Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Solicitors' Duties, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Equity Limitation of Actions Breach of Fiduciary Duty Solicitors' Duties Amendment of Pleadings

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mortgage Express (an unlimited company)

Claimant/respondent

Abensons solicitors (a firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order Allowing Amendment of Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to plead breach of fiduciary duty should be allowed after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether such amendments deprive the defendant of an arguable limitation defence under s32 Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether breach of fiduciary duty necessarily involves deliberate conduct sufficient to engage s32(2) Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments allowed by the Master could permit a claim for breach of fiduciary duty to succeed on the basis of negligence, not just deliberate conduct. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendments necessarily deprive the defendant of an arguable limitation defence. The Master's order was wrong in so far as it related to the amendments concerning the loans for Units 1-4, and must be set aside to allow the limitation issue to be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Master's order set aside as regards amendments relating to loans for Units 1-4
  • Claimant to pursue a separate claim for Units 1-4, with limitation to be determined at trial