Langsam v Beachcroft LLP & Ors

Langsam v Beachcroft LLP & Ors

The critical advice on settlement was given by leading counsel, not negligently. Beachcroft LLP's conduct did not fall below the standard expected of competent practitioners, even with specialist expertise. The solicitor was entitled to rely on counsel's advice unless it was obviously or glaringly wrong, which it was not. The counterclaim for fees was properly dismissed and costs consequences of the offer did not apply.

Parties
Appellant (main Appeal), Respondent (costs Appeal): Alexander Langsam; Respondent (main Appeal), Appellant (costs Appeal): Beachcroft LLP; Respondent (main Appeal), Appellant (costs Appeal): Paul Murray; Respondent (main Appeal), Appellant (costs Appeal): Simon Hodson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Advice on Settlement, Loss of a Chance, Costs Consequences of Offers, Conditional Fee Agreements
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Solicitor's Duty of Care Advice on Settlement Loss of a Chance Costs Consequences of Offers Conditional Fee Agreements

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Langsam

Appellant (main Appeal), Respondent (costs Appeal)

Beachcroft LLP

Respondent (main Appeal), Appellant (costs Appeal)

Paul Murray

Respondent (main Appeal), Appellant (costs Appeal)

Simon Hodson

Respondent (main Appeal), Appellant (costs Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Beachcroft LLP and its partners were negligent in advising Alexander Langsam on settlement of his professional negligence claim against Hacker Young
  2. 2 Whether Beachcroft LLP failed to properly instruct counsel or provide relevant information
  3. 3 Whether Beachcroft LLP was entitled to costs of its unsuccessful counterclaim for fees

Ratio Decidendi

The critical advice on settlement was given by leading counsel, not negligently. Beachcroft LLP's conduct did not fall below the standard expected of competent practitioners, even with specialist expertise. The solicitor was entitled to rely on counsel's advice unless it was obviously or glaringly wrong, which it was not. The counterclaim for fees was properly dismissed and costs consequences of the offer did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr Langsam's claim dismissed.
  • Beachcroft LLP's counterclaim for fees dismissed.