Hughmans (A Firm) v Dunhill [2017] EWCA Civ 97 (08 March 2017)

Hughmans (A Firm) v Dunhill [2017] EWCA Civ 97 (08 March 2017)

Summary judgment was wrongly granted as there was a real prospect of success on the Defence and Counterclaim; scope of retainer and causation of loss require determination at trial; refusal to allow amendment was incorrect.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 97
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Hughmans (A Firm); Appellants/defendants & Counterclaimants: Alexandra Dunhill (Suing on her own behalf and as litigation friend on behalf of W)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment for Hughmans on Claim and Counterclaim set aside; application to amend Defence and Counterclaim allowed; Ms Dunhill's application for summary judgment dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Retainer Scope, Causation and Loss, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Family Law Summary Judgment Solicitor's Duty of Care Retainer Scope Causation and Loss Amendment of Pleadings

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

Parties

Hughmans (A Firm)

Respondent/claimant

Alexandra Dunhill (Suing on her own behalf and as litigation friend on behalf of W)

Appellants/defendants & Counterclaimants

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on Hughmans' claim and Ms Dunhill's counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether Ms Dunhill should be permitted to amend her Defence and Counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether Hughmans owed duties to advise the children or Ms Dunhill about their rights

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was wrongly granted as there was a real prospect of success on the Defence and Counterclaim; scope of retainer and causation of loss require determination at trial; refusal to allow amendment was incorrect.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment for Hughmans on Claim and Counterclaim set aside; application to amend Defence and Counterclaim allowed; Ms Dunhill's application for summary judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against summary judgment for Hughmans on Claim and Counterclaim allowed
  • Application to amend Defence and Counterclaim allowed