Gray v Avadis [2003] EWHC 1830 (QB) (30 July 2003)

Gray v Avadis [2003] EWHC 1830 (QB) (30 July 2003)

Statements made by a solicitor to the OSS in response to a client complaint are protected by absolute privilege because the OSS acts as a tribunal with functions equivalent to a court of justice. The fraud claim was unsupported by evidence and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1830
Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Gray; Defendant: Laurie Avadis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal (queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Master’s Order Striking Out Libel and Fraud Claims; Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; defendant’s application to strike out fraud claim allowed.
Legal Topics
Absolute Privilege, Qualified Privilege, Fraud, Striking Out, Summary Judgment, Solicitors’ Regulatory Proceedings
Defamation Professional Regulation Civil Procedure Absolute Privilege Qualified Privilege Fraud Striking Out Summary Judgment +1 more

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

Parties

Benjamin Gray

Claimant

Laurie Avadis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Appeal (queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Master’s Order Striking Out Libel and Fraud Claims; Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by a solicitor to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) are protected by absolute privilege
  2. 2 Whether the claim in fraud discloses a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted

Ratio Decidendi

Statements made by a solicitor to the OSS in response to a client complaint are protected by absolute privilege because the OSS acts as a tribunal with functions equivalent to a court of justice. The fraud claim was unsupported by evidence and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; defendant’s application to strike out fraud claim allowed.

Orders

  • Claimant’s appeal dismissed.
  • Defendant’s application to strike out the claim in fraud allowed.