Hellard & Anor v Irwin Mitchell

Irwin Mitchell were not negligent in their advice or conduct regarding limitation issues. The claim against SFS/SIFC was not hopeless on limitation grounds, and the risks were adequately explained to Mr Shore, who made his own informed decisions. There was no failure to advise on settlement or funding that caused loss. The claimants failed to prove negligence or causation.

Parties: Claimant: Kevin Hellard; Claimant: Amanda Wade; Defendant: Irwin Mitchell
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 October 2013
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome: Claim dismissed
Legal Topics: Solicitors' Duties, Limitation Periods, Section 14 a Limitation Act, Advice on Prospects, Settlement Advice

Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Solicitors' Duties Limitation Periods Section 14 a Limitation Act Advice on Prospects Settlement Advice

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Kevin Hellard

Claimant

Amanda Wade

Claimant

Irwin Mitchell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether Irwin Mitchell were negligent in their advice to Mr Shore regarding limitation issues in his claim against SFS and SIFC
2 Whether the claim against SFS/SIFC was hopeless on limitation grounds and whether this was properly communicated to Mr Shore
3 Whether Irwin Mitchell failed to advise Mr Shore adequately on the risks, prospects, and settlement opportunities

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed