Riordan & Ors v Moon Beevor Solicitors (a firm) [2018] EWHC 1452 (QB) (25 May 2018)

Riordan & Ors v Moon Beevor Solicitors (a firm) [2018] EWHC 1452 (QB) (25 May 2018)

The court held that the consent order was a procedural accommodation, not a substantive settlement, and that the assertion of a fully articulated professional negligence claim justified the stay of proceedings for detailed assessment. The Master had jurisdiction to intervene and the decision was correct.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1452
Parties
Claimant: John Riordan; Claimant: Barrington Burke; Claimant: Prestige Property Developer UK (Ltd); Claimant: Eugene Burke; Defendant: Moon Beevor Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Master Haworth's Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Variation of Orders
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Consent Orders Relief From Sanctions Detailed Assessment of Costs Stay of Proceedings Variation of Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Riordan

Claimant

Barrington Burke

Claimant

Prestige Property Developer UK (Ltd)

Claimant

Eugene Burke

Claimant

Moon Beevor Solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Master Haworth's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a material change in circumstances justified staying a consent order for detailed assessment of costs
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to intervene with a consent order in light of a professional negligence claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the consent order was a procedural accommodation, not a substantive settlement, and that the assertion of a fully articulated professional negligence claim justified the stay of proceedings for detailed assessment. The Master had jurisdiction to intervene and the decision was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Indefinite stay of detailed assessment proceedings pending resolution of the Claimants' proposed professional negligence claim against the Defendant
  • Liberty to apply provision maintained