PBF Investments Limited v Ewan & Co LLP

PBF Investments Limited v Ewan & Co LLP

The Defendant solicitors assumed a duty to consider all relevant matters regarding the loan and to ensure the Claimant was adequately protected with a first charge. They failed to do so, and the Claimant relied on their assurances. The Claimant would not have made the loan had it known it would not have a first charge. The Defendant's breaches caused the Claimant's loss, and the Claimant did not fail to mitigate its loss.

Parties
Claimant: PBF Investments Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Ewan & Co LLP; Part 20 Defendant: Richards & Co (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Judgment After Trial (defendant Not Appearing)
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Duties, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Mitigation of Loss, Security for Loans
Professional Negligence Contract Law Solicitors' Duties Breach of Contract Negligence Mitigation of Loss Security for Loans

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

Parties

PBF Investments Limited

Claimant

Ewan & Co LLP

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Richards & Co (A Firm)

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Judgment After Trial (defendant Not Appearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant solicitors breached their duty of care and contractual obligations in advising the Claimant regarding security for a loan
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant failed to mitigate its loss by not pursuing the guarantor
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's alleged defences have merit

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant solicitors assumed a duty to consider all relevant matters regarding the loan and to ensure the Claimant was adequately protected with a first charge. They failed to do so, and the Claimant relied on their assurances. The Claimant would not have made the loan had it known it would not have a first charge. The Defendant's breaches caused the Claimant's loss, and the Claimant did not fail to mitigate its loss.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • The Claimant is entitled to judgment in the sum claimed (£578,413), with consequential matters including interest to be dealt with on hand down.