Thames Trains Ltd & Anor v Adams [2006] EWHC 3291 (QB) (20 December 2006)

Thames Trains Ltd & Anor v Adams [2006] EWHC 3291 (QB) (20 December 2006)

On the facts, the defendant's solicitor was not under a duty to inform the claimant's solicitor of the earlier offer, as she did not know at the material time whether the fax had been sent. Her silence was not unconscionable, deceitful, or sharp practice. The failure to receive the fax was due to the claimant's own...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3291 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Thames Trains Ltd; Claimant: Railtrack PLC (In Administration); Defendant: Michael Adams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Consent Order
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Estoppel, Unilateral Mistake, Solicitor's Duties, Consent Orders, Unconscionable Conduct
Contract Law Professional Conduct Civil Procedure Estoppel Unilateral Mistake Solicitor's Duties Consent Orders Unconscionable Conduct

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thames Trains Ltd

Claimant

Railtrack PLC (In Administration)

Claimant

Michael Adams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's solicitor was under a duty to inform the claimant's solicitor of an earlier offer to settle which was not received due to a fax error
  2. 2 Whether silence by the defendant's solicitor amounted to unconscionable conduct, estoppel, or mistake justifying setting aside the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, the defendant's solicitor was not under a duty to inform the claimant's solicitor of the earlier offer, as she did not know at the material time whether the fax had been sent. Her silence was not unconscionable, deceitful, or sharp practice. The failure to receive the fax was due to the claimant's own systems error. No estoppel or mistake arose to justify setting aside the consent order.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside the consent order is dismissed