Somatra Ltd. v Sinclair Roche & Temperley

Somatra Ltd. v Sinclair Roche & Temperley

Permission to appeal was granted on several points, including the findings of breach of duty at the settlement meeting, causation and damages, and the approach to loss of chance, as there were arguable points of law and principle. Permission was refused on the finding of dishonesty regarding the invitation to lay persons, as there was ample material to support the judge's finding and no real prospect of success on appeal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Somatra Limited; Defendant/applicant: Sinclair Roche & Temperley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal High Court Judgment
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part; stay of execution ordered subject to provision of bank guarantee for security for costs.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Causation and Loss, Permission to Appeal, Damages Assessment, Security for Costs
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Solicitor's Duty of Care Causation and Loss Permission to Appeal Damages Assessment Security for Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Somatra Limited

Claimant/respondent

Sinclair Roche & Temperley

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings of breach of duty by the solicitors were justified
  2. 2 Whether breaches of duty caused the loss claimed by Somatra
  3. 3 Whether the judge's approach to causation and damages was correct

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted on several points, including the findings of breach of duty at the settlement meeting, causation and damages, and the approach to loss of chance, as there were arguable points of law and principle. Permission was refused on the finding of dishonesty regarding the invitation to lay persons, as there was ample material to support the judge's finding and no real prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part; stay of execution ordered subject to provision of bank guarantee for security for costs.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on specified grounds relating to breach of duty, causation, damages, and indemnity costs.
  • Permission to appeal refused on the finding of dishonesty regarding invitation to lay persons.