Pritchard Joyce & Hinds v Batcup & Anor
Both defendants breached their duty by failing to advise Mr. and Mrs. Fox about the limitation period for a claim against Wellers, resulting in loss of a claim with substantial value. PJH's settlement was bona fide and reasonable. Contribution is apportioned 75:25 between counsel and solicitors.
- Parties
- Claimant: Pritchard Joyce & Hinds; Defendant: Batcup; Defendant: Susman
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 January 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Contribution Claim / Judgment
- Outcome
- Defendants liable to contribute to PJH's settlement with Mr. and Mrs. Fox.
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Solicitors' Duty of Care, Contribution Between Tortfeasors
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pritchard Joyce & Hinds
Claimant
Batcup
Defendant
Susman
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Contribution Claim / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Were the defendants liable for failing to advise on the limitation period for a claim against Wellers?
- 2 Did the lost settlement claim against Lindars Leech have substantial value?
- 3 Was PJH's settlement with Mr. and Mrs. Fox bona fide and reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi
Both defendants breached their duty by failing to advise Mr. and Mrs. Fox about the limitation period for a claim against Wellers, resulting in loss of a claim with substantial value. PJH's settlement was bona fide and reasonable. Contribution is apportioned 75:25 between counsel and solicitors.
Court Disposition
Defendants liable to contribute to PJH's settlement with Mr. and Mrs. Fox.
Orders
- Defendants to contribute 75% of £110,000 and £160,000 costs to PJH.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment