Hughmans (A Firm) v Dunhill

Hughmans (A Firm) v Dunhill

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the Defence and Counterclaim raised factual issues with a real prospect of success, particularly regarding Hughmans' duty to advise about the children's rights and causation of loss, which require determination at trial. The application to amend the Defence and Counterclaim should have been allowed. Ms Dunhill's application for summary judgment was properly dismissed as the issues required trial.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Hughmans (A Firm); Appellant/defendant & Counterclaimant: Alexandra Dunhill; Counterclaimant: W (a young person)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Amendment Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment for Hughmans on the 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughmans (A Firm)

Respondent/claimant

Alexandra Dunhill

Appellant/defendant & Counterclaimant

W (a young person)

Counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Amendment Application

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 to add W as a counterclaimant
  3. 3 Whether Hughmans owed duties to advise the children or Ms Dunhill about their rights

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the Defence and Counterclaim raised factual issues with a real prospect of success, particularly regarding Hughmans' duty to advise about the children's rights and causation of loss, which require determination at trial. The application to amend the Defence and Counterclaim should have been allowed. Ms Dunhill's application for summary judgment was properly dismissed as the issues required trial.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Hughmans on the Claim and Counterclaim set aside
  • Application to amend Defence and Counterclaim allowed