Kingsley Napley LLP v Harris (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 901 (QB) (14 April 2021)

Kingsley Napley LLP v Harris (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 901 (QB) (14 April 2021)

Although Kingsley Napley LLP breached its duty by failing to ensure the Standstill Agreement was entered into with the correct party, no loss was caused to Mr Harris because there was no realistic prospect of achieving a better settlement than the one obtained. The underlying claim's value was limited by evidential and quantum difficulties, and the best available settlement was achieved before the Standstill Agreement issue arose.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 901
Parties
Claimant: Kingsley Napley LLP; Defendant: Mr Steven Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim (solicitors' Fees and Counterclaim) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Loss of a Chance, Limitation Periods, Standstill Agreements, Solicitors' Duties, Causation and Quantum, Settlement Negotiations
Professional Negligence Contract Law Civil Procedure Loss of a Chance Limitation Periods Standstill Agreements Solicitors' Duties Causation and Quantum +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsley Napley LLP

Claimant

Mr Steven Harris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim (solicitors' Fees and Counterclaim) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kingsley Napley LLP breached its duty by failing to ensure the Standstill Agreement was entered into with the correct party
  2. 2 Whether any loss was caused to Mr Harris by this breach
  3. 3 Whether Mr Harris lost a real and substantial chance of a better settlement in his claim against IWG

Ratio Decidendi

Although Kingsley Napley LLP breached its duty by failing to ensure the Standstill Agreement was entered into with the correct party, no loss was caused to Mr Harris because there was no realistic prospect of achieving a better settlement than the one obtained. The underlying claim's value was limited by evidential and quantum difficulties, and the best available settlement was achieved before the Standstill Agreement issue arose.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed