Leonard & Anor v Byrt & Ors

Leonard & Anor v Byrt & Ors

The appellants had no real prospect of establishing breach of duty against any of the respondents. Even if breach were established, there was no real prospect of proving causation: public funding would not have been granted on the wider basis, and the chance of amending the claim and succeeding on the constructive total loss argument was negligible given the procedural history and delays.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Professional Negligence Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Causation, Duty of Care, Legal Aid/public Funding, Litigation Conduct
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Causation Duty of Care Legal Aid/public Funding Litigation Conduct

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Professional Negligence Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had a real prospect of succeeding in their professional negligence claim 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 opportunity to pursue a larger claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants had no real prospect of establishing breach of duty against any of the respondents. Even if breach were established, there was no real prospect of proving causation: public funding would not have been granted on the wider basis, and the chance of amending the claim and succeeding on the constructive total loss argument was negligible given the procedural history and delays.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for all respondents stands.