Leonard & Anor v Byrt & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 20 (29 January 2008)

Leonard & Anor v Byrt & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 20 (29 January 2008)

The appellants had no real prospect of success in their claim for professional negligence because, even if breach of duty were established, there was no sufficient evidence that any breach caused the loss of public funding or the ability to pursue the primary litigation to a successful outcome. The evidence showed repeated refusals of public funding by the Legal Aid Board/Legal Services Commission, and the appellants' own conduct and delay were significant factors in the failure of the primary litigation. The summary judgment was therefore properly granted.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 20
Parties
Appellant: David Leonard; Appellant: Caroline Leonard; 1st Respondent: Richard Byrt; 2nd Respondent: Byrt Cohen; 3rd Respondents: Laurence John Batten, Heather Elizabeth Baker, Caroline Claire Houlihan-Burne, Executors of the Estate of Timothy Baker, Deceased; 4th Respondent: Paul Stafford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Causation, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Limitation of Actions, Legal Aid/public Funding
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Causation Duty of Care Breach of Duty Limitation of Actions Legal Aid/public Funding

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Leonard

Appellant

Caroline Leonard

Appellant

Richard Byrt

1st Respondent

Byrt Cohen

2nd Respondent

Laurence John Batten, Heather Elizabeth Baker, Caroline Claire Houlihan-Burne, Executors of the Estate of Timothy Baker, Deceased

3rd Respondents

Paul Stafford

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had a real prospect of succeeding in their claim for professional negligence against their former legal and expert advisers
  2. 2 Whether any alleged breach of duty by the respondents caused loss to the appellants, specifically the loss of public funding and the ability to pursue the primary litigation to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants had no real prospect of success in their claim for professional negligence because, even if breach of duty were established, there was no sufficient evidence that any breach caused the loss of public funding or the ability to pursue the primary litigation to a successful outcome. The evidence showed repeated refusals of public funding by the Legal Aid Board/Legal Services Commission, and the appellants' own conduct and delay were significant factors in the failure of the primary litigation. The summary judgment was therefore properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of all respondents affirmed
  • No real prospect of success in the claim against any respondent