Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor [2023] EWHC 1814 (KB) (18 July 2023)

The issues relating to the reliance defence were not suitable for summary judgment because the level of the first defendant's expertise and the reasonableness of their reliance on counsel's advice required further factual investigation at trial.

Citation: [2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
Parties: Claimant: Anna Christie; First Defendant: Mary Ward Legal Centre; Second Defendant: Andrew Dymond
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 July 2023
Procedural Posture: Appeal (professional Negligence) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Solicitor's Reliance on Counsel, Limitation Periods

Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Summary Judgment Strike Out Solicitor's Reliance on Counsel Limitation Periods

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 11 Party arguments 2

Parties

Anna Christie

Claimant

Mary Ward Legal Centre

First Defendant

Andrew Dymond

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (professional Negligence) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant was unfairly taken by surprise by the determination of the reliance defence at the summary judgment hearing
2 Whether the first defendant solicitors were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of reliance on counsel's advice

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Order of the Master for summary judgment quashed
Directions for further progress of the claim to be sought from Soole J pending outcome of limitation appeal