Thomson Snell & Passmore (A Firm) v Armstrong & Anor [2006] EWHC 2027 (Ch) (31 July 2006)

Thomson Snell & Passmore (A Firm) v Armstrong & Anor [2006] EWHC 2027 (Ch) (31 July 2006)

There was ample and unchallenged evidence before the Master to establish the reasonableness of the solicitors' fees, and the Defence and Counterclaim were unsustainable and unsupported by evidence. The Defendants were not entitled to reopen arguments or introduce new evidence after judgment was circulated.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2027 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Thomson Snell & Passmore; Defendant/appellant: Terence Armstrong; Defendant/appellant: Jason Armstrong
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Striking Out of Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused on the issue of costs; conditional permission to appeal granted on the Counterclaim issue upon payment into court of £20,000 within 28 days.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Solicitors' Fees, Striking Out Pleadings, Professional Negligence, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Summary Judgment Solicitors' Fees Striking Out Pleadings Professional Negligence Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Thomson Snell & Passmore

Claimant/respondent

Terence Armstrong

Defendant/appellant

Jason Armstrong

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Striking Out of Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment for unpaid solicitors' fees was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether permission to amend Defence and Counterclaim should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

There was ample and unchallenged evidence before the Master to establish the reasonableness of the solicitors' fees, and the Defence and Counterclaim were unsustainable and unsupported by evidence. The Defendants were not entitled to reopen arguments or introduce new evidence after judgment was circulated.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused on the issue of costs; conditional permission to appeal granted on the Counterclaim issue upon payment into court of £20,000 within 28 days.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the Claimant for £19,247.61 and interest upheld
  • Defence and Counterclaim struck out