Hinkel v Simmons & Simmons LLP [2021] EWHC 55 (Ch) (15 January 2021)

Hinkel v Simmons & Simmons LLP [2021] EWHC 55 (Ch) (15 January 2021)

There was no evidence from which the court could properly infer that Simmons & Simmons LLP knew or were reckless as to the falsity of their representation of authority to act for the Republic of Iran. The fraud allegation was not properly pleaded and the evidence, including the draft engagement letter, did not alter the analysis. Summary judgment was correctly granted.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 55 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: David Anthony Hinkel; Respondent: Simmons & Simmons LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Solicitor's Duty, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Fraud Professional Negligence Summary Judgment Fraudulent Misrepresentation Solicitor's Duty Permission to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Hinkel

Appellant

Simmons & Simmons LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Simmons & Simmons LLP committed fraud against Mr Hinkel by misrepresenting their authority to act for the Republic of Iran
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was correctly granted dismissing the fraud claim
  3. 3 Whether new evidence (draft engagement letter) alters the fraud analysis

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence from which the court could properly infer that Simmons & Simmons LLP knew or were reckless as to the falsity of their representation of authority to act for the Republic of Iran. The fraud allegation was not properly pleaded and the evidence, including the draft engagement letter, did not alter the analysis. Summary judgment was correctly granted.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • no order as to costs