Hinkel v Simmons & Simmons LLP

Hinkel v Simmons & Simmons LLP

The application for permission to appeal was refused because there was no arguable case that Simmons & Simmons LLP acted dishonestly or recklessly. The evidence, including the draft engagement letter, did not support an inference of fraud, and alternative explanations (such as carelessness or being deceived themselves) were more plausible. The lower court's approach and findings were correct and available on the evidence.

Parties
Appellant: David Anthony Hinkel; Respondent: Simmons & Simmons LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Application)
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Solicitor's Duties, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Fraud Summary Judgment Fraudulent Misrepresentation Solicitor's Duties 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Hinkel

Appellant

Simmons & Simmons LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the fraud claim against Simmons & Simmons LLP
  2. 2 Whether there was an arguable case that Simmons & Simmons LLP acted dishonestly or recklessly in holding themselves out as instructed solicitors for the Republic of Iran
  3. 3 Whether new evidence (draft engagement letter) altered the merits of the fraud allegation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because there was no arguable case that Simmons & Simmons LLP acted dishonestly or recklessly. The evidence, including the draft engagement letter, did not support an inference of fraud, and alternative explanations (such as carelessness or being deceived themselves) were more plausible. The lower court's approach and findings were correct and available on the evidence.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused