Guy v Pannone LLP [2009] EWCA Civ 30 (10 February 2009)

Guy v Pannone LLP [2009] EWCA Civ 30 (10 February 2009)

Mr Guy failed to provide evidence that he did not countermand his instructions to Pannone LLP after 28 February 2005, and failed to show that any alleged negligence by Pannone caused him loss, given Barclays' existing priority. There was no arguable cross-claim sufficient to set aside the statutory demand.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 30
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Trevor Guy; Respondent: Pannone LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal to Set Aside Statutory Demand; Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy, Solicitor's Negligence, Conflict of Interest, Land Registration, Priority of Charges
Insolvency Law Professional Negligence Property Law Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Solicitor's Negligence Conflict of Interest Land Registration +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Guy

Applicant/appellant

Pannone LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal to Set Aside Statutory Demand; Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pannone LLP was negligent in failing to act on instructions to protect Mr Guy's interest in property
  2. 2 Whether Pannone LLP breached duty by not disclosing prior knowledge of fraud allegations against a third party
  3. 3 Whether Mr Guy had a substantial cross-claim exceeding the debt to justify setting aside the statutory demand

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Guy failed to provide evidence that he did not countermand his instructions to Pannone LLP after 28 February 2005, and failed to show that any alleged negligence by Pannone caused him loss, given Barclays' existing priority. There was no arguable cross-claim sufficient to set aside the statutory demand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory demand stands
  • No order for repayment of sums paid to stave off bankruptcy