Hurst v BDO Stoy Hayward LLP [2006] EWHC 791 (Ch) (07 April 2006)

Hurst v BDO Stoy Hayward LLP [2006] EWHC 791 (Ch) (07 April 2006)

The appeal is dismissed because the alleged negligence by the defendant did not cause any actionable loss; the IVA proposal would have failed regardless due to the claimant's litigious conduct, lack of finality, and the creditors' opposition. There is no real prospect of success in the claim, and the summary judgment and strike out were correct.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 791 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Alfred Hurst; Defendant: BDO Stoy Hayward LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Duty of Care, Bankruptcy, Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva), Equity of Exoneration
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Insolvency Summary Judgment Strike Out Duty of Care Bankruptcy Individual Voluntary Arrangement (iva) +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Alfred Hurst

Claimant

BDO Stoy Hayward LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant accountants were negligent in preparing documents for an IVA proposal for the claimant
  2. 2 Whether any alleged negligence caused loss to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the summary judgment and strike out by the Master was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the alleged negligence by the defendant did not cause any actionable loss; the IVA proposal would have failed regardless due to the claimant's litigious conduct, lack of finality, and the creditors' opposition. There is no real prospect of success in the claim, and the summary judgment and strike out were correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for damages dismissed
  • Possession proceedings stay to be determined after further submissions