Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) [2017] EWHC 1249 (Ch) (23 May 2017)

Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) [2017] EWHC 1249 (Ch) (23 May 2017)

The SRA's application for summary judgment is dismissed because the claimant has a real prospect of establishing at trial that the SRA's wrongful release of confidential property caused him to incur legal costs in seeking its recovery, and such costs are recoverable in conversion and potentially under the other causes of action. Neither Mr Dempsey's conduct nor the claimant's litigation decisions broke the chain of causation.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1249 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alexis Maitland Hudson; Defendant: Solicitors Regulation Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application by Defendant Under CPR 24.2
Outcome
Defendant's application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Breach of Confidence, Duty of Confidentiality, Causation, Damages, Summary Judgment, Solicitors' Regulation
Tort Law Equity Professional Regulation Conversion Breach of Confidence Duty of Confidentiality Causation Damages +2 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexis Maitland Hudson

Claimant

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application by Defendant Under CPR 24.2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SRA's alleged breach of duty caused recoverable loss to the claimant under claims for conversion, breach of equitable duty of confidence, and breach of common law duty to preserve confidentiality; whether intervening acts broke the chain of causation; whether summary judgment should be granted against the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

The SRA's application for summary judgment is dismissed because the claimant has a real prospect of establishing at trial that the SRA's wrongful release of confidential property caused him to incur legal costs in seeking its recovery, and such costs are recoverable in conversion and potentially under the other causes of action. Neither Mr Dempsey's conduct nor the claimant's litigation decisions broke the chain of causation.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • SRA's application for summary judgment is dismissed
  • Preliminary directions for conduct of the claim to be given at hand down hearing