Property Protea Holdings Ltd v 119 Molyneux Road Ltd & Ors

Property Protea Holdings Ltd v 119 Molyneux Road Ltd & Ors

EAD has a real prospect of defending the claim for costs as damages on the basis that the claimant may have failed to mitigate its losses or acted unreasonably in pursuing costly litigation against Molyneux and Mr Ware for no financial return. Therefore, summary judgment for the costs as damages is refused beyond the extent already conceded by EAD.

Parties
Claimant: Property Protea Holdings Limited; First Defendant: 119 Molyneux Road Limited; Second Defendant: Robert Ware; Third Defendant: EAD Solicitors LLP (In Administration); Fourth Defendant: Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted only to the extent conceded by EAD; claim for costs as damages to proceed to trial on the issue of reasonableness and mitigation.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Mitigation of Loss, Summary Judgment, Costs as Damages, Land Registration
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Property Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Mitigation of Loss Summary Judgment Costs as Damages Land Registration

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Property Protea Holdings Limited

Claimant

119 Molyneux Road Limited

First Defendant

Robert Ware

Second Defendant

EAD Solicitors LLP (In Administration)

Third Defendant

Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to recover as damages the costs incurred in pursuing litigation against Molyneux and Mr Ware from EAD Solicitors LLP for breach of duty
  2. 2 Whether EAD has a real prospect of defending the claim for costs as damages on the basis of failure to mitigate loss or unreasonableness of incurring such costs

Ratio Decidendi

EAD has a real prospect of defending the claim for costs as damages on the basis that the claimant may have failed to mitigate its losses or acted unreasonably in pursuing costly litigation against Molyneux and Mr Ware for no financial return. Therefore, summary judgment for the costs as damages is refused beyond the extent already conceded by EAD.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted only to the extent conceded by EAD; claim for costs as damages to proceed to trial on the issue of reasonableness and mitigation.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment for costs as damages refused except as conceded by EAD
  • Issue of reasonableness of costs and mitigation to be determined at trial