Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik v Clyde & Co LLP & Ors

Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik v Clyde & Co LLP & Ors

Claims against D2, D3, and D4 relating to the reamendment application are time-barred as claimant had requisite knowledge in December 2011; no continuing duty of care existed; claims for loss of a chance regarding reamendment and imprudent allocation were hopeless given findings in underlying litigation; claim against D2 for anti-suit injunction advice is hopeless; only claim against D1 regarding anti-suit injunction advice survives to trial.

Parties
Claimant: Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik; First Defendant: Clyde & Co LLP; Second Defendant: Michael Black QC; Third Defendant: Marcus Staff; Fourth Defendant: Harney Westwood and Riegels
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claims against D2, D3, and D4 dismissed as time-barred and/or no real prospect of success; claim against D2 regarding anti-suit injunction dismissed; claim against D1 regarding anti-suit injunction advice to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Loss of a Chance, Summary Judgment, Continuing Duty of Care, Anti Suit Injunction, Breach of Trust, Money Had and Received
Professional Negligence Limitation Civil Procedure Limitation Period Loss of a Chance Summary Judgment Continuing Duty of Care Anti Suit Injunction +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik

Claimant

Clyde & Co LLP

First Defendant

Michael Black QC

Second Defendant

Marcus Staff

Third Defendant

Harney Westwood and Riegels

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against D2, D3, and D4 are time-barred under s.14A Limitation Act 1980 / s.14 CLL 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was a continuing duty of care owed by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claims relating to the reamendment application had real prospects of success (loss of a chance)

Ratio Decidendi

Claims against D2, D3, and D4 relating to the reamendment application are time-barred as claimant had requisite knowledge in December 2011; no continuing duty of care existed; claims for loss of a chance regarding reamendment and imprudent allocation were hopeless given findings in underlying litigation; claim against D2 for anti-suit injunction advice is hopeless; only claim against D1 regarding anti-suit injunction advice survives to trial.

Court Disposition

Claims against D2, D3, and D4 dismissed as time-barred and/or no real prospect of success; claim against D2 regarding anti-suit injunction dismissed; claim against D1 regarding anti-suit injunction advice to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Reverse summary judgment granted in favour of D2, D3, and D4 on all claims.
  • Reverse summary judgment granted in favour of D2 on anti-suit injunction claim.