Elliott v Hattens Solicitors (a firm)
Mrs Elliott's cause of action accrued when the lease and underlease were executed because, due to Hattens' negligence, she immediately received less valuable rights (no guarantee, no insurance advice), making her position measurably worse. The claim was therefore statute-barred as it was brought more than six years after the transaction.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Kelly Elliott; Defendants/appellants: Hattens Solicitors (a firm)
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Preliminary Issue (limitation)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; claim held statute-barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Period in Tort, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Flawed Transaction Doctrine, Accrual of Cause of Action
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kelly Elliott
Claimant/respondent
Hattens Solicitors (a firm)
Defendants/appellants
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Preliminary Issue (limitation)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim for solicitor's negligence is barred by the Limitation Act 1980 based on when actionable damage was first sustained
Ratio Decidendi
Mrs Elliott's cause of action accrued when the lease and underlease were executed because, due to Hattens' negligence, she immediately received less valuable rights (no guarantee, no insurance advice), making her position measurably worse. The claim was therefore statute-barred as it was brought more than six years after the transaction.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; claim held statute-barred
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- Mrs Elliott's claim is dismissed as statute-barred.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment