Blakemores LDP v Scott & Anor

Blakemores LDP v Scott & Anor

The judge erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence did not establish that the appellants had the requisite knowledge of material facts about the damage in April 2009. The only evidence was the solicitor's statement, which was not inconsistent with the pleadings and could not be rejected without cross-examination. The relevant knowledge for limitation purposes required understanding the consequences of the negligent act, which the appellants did not have until December 2010. The default judgment against Mr Balchin should be set aside as he had a real prospect of defending the claim and his delay was excusable in the circumstances.

Parties
Claimant/respondent and Defendant/appellant: Blakemores LDP (in administration); Defendant/appellant and Claimant/appellant: Carole Ann Scott; Defendant/appellant: Christopher Balchin; Defendant/appellant and Claimant/appellant: Eric Charles Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Default Judgment in High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Limitation Periods, Professional Negligence by Solicitors, Setting Aside Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment Limitation Periods Professional Negligence by Solicitors Setting Aside Default Judgment

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

Parties

Blakemores LDP (in administration)

Claimant/respondent and Defendant/appellant

Carole Ann Scott

Defendant/appellant and Claimant/appellant

Christopher Balchin

Defendant/appellant

Eric Charles Walker

Defendant/appellant and Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Default Judgment in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was right to grant summary judgment on the basis that the negligence claim was statute barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the relevant knowledge for limitation purposes was acquired by the appellants in April 2009 or later
  3. 3 Whether the judge was right to reject the solicitor's evidence on a summary judgment application

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence did not establish that the appellants had the requisite knowledge of material facts about the damage in April 2009. The only evidence was the solicitor's statement, which was not inconsistent with the pleadings and could not be rejected without cross-examination. The relevant knowledge for limitation purposes required understanding the consequences of the negligent act, which the appellants did not have until December 2010. The default judgment against Mr Balchin should be set aside as he had a real prospect of defending the claim and his delay was excusable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Summary judgment against Ms Scott and Mr Walker in both actions set aside
  • Default judgment against Mr Balchin in the first action set aside