Smith v Eversheds

Smith v Eversheds

There was no personal undertaking by Eversheds that Eagle Star would honour the counterclaim; the correspondence did not amount to a contractual promise or warranty of authority by Eversheds. Any claims for breach were statute barred, and the judge correctly applied the objective test for construction of the correspondence.

Parties
Applicant: Smith; Respondent: Eversheds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Undertaking by Solicitors, Warranty of Authority, Statute of Limitations, Construction of Correspondence
Civil Procedure Contract Law Professional Negligence Personal Undertaking by Solicitors Warranty of Authority Statute of Limitations Construction of Correspondence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith

Applicant

Eversheds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eversheds gave a personal undertaking that Eagle Star would honour any counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether Eversheds was in breach of warranty of authority
  3. 3 Whether any claim for damages was statute barred

Ratio Decidendi

There was no personal undertaking by Eversheds that Eagle Star would honour the counterclaim; the correspondence did not amount to a contractual promise or warranty of authority by Eversheds. Any claims for breach were statute barred, and the judge correctly applied the objective test for construction of the correspondence.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused