Knight & Anor v Haynes Duffell, Kentish & Co (a firm)

Knight & Anor v Haynes Duffell, Kentish & Co (a firm)

The solicitors were in breach of trust by releasing client funds without securing the assignment of the trade name as required by the terms of the trust. The proper measure of damages was the return of the sums paid, assessed at a 75% chance of success in the original action. Interest should run from the date of breach in April 1990. The claim for damages relating to the McIntosh assignment failed for lack of evidence.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Trevor Knight; Claimant/appellant: David Norman Keay; Defendant/respondent: Haynes Duffell, Kentish & Co (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal of the claimants allowed; applications for permission to appeal by defendants refused.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Breach of Trust, Damages Assessment, Interest on Damages
Professional Negligence Trust Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Breach of Trust Damages Assessment Interest on Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Knight

Claimant/appellant

David Norman Keay

Claimant/appellant

Haynes Duffell, Kentish & Co (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitors (defendants) were negligent and/or in breach of contract in allowing the original action to be struck out for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the solicitors were in breach of trust by releasing client funds without securing the assignment of the trade name as agreed
  3. 3 How damages should be assessed for loss of a chance in the underlying action

Ratio Decidendi

The solicitors were in breach of trust by releasing client funds without securing the assignment of the trade name as required by the terms of the trust. The proper measure of damages was the return of the sums paid, assessed at a 75% chance of success in the original action. Interest should run from the date of breach in April 1990. The claim for damages relating to the McIntosh assignment failed for lack of evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal of the claimants allowed; applications for permission to appeal by defendants refused.

Orders

  • Order that the sum of £15,000 paid in on behalf of the defendants on 20th September 2002 is paid out in partial satisfaction of this judgment, with the interest accrued thereupon.
  • Respondents to pay 95 per cent of the appellants' costs.