Balogun v Boyes Sutton & Perry

Balogun v Boyes Sutton & Perry

There is a realistic prospect that the judge was in error regarding the solicitor's duty to advise on the risk of lack of rights to use the ventilation shaft and to seek planning authority confirmation; permission to appeal is granted on both grounds.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Balogun; Defendant/respondent: Boyes Sutton & Perry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Commercial Lease, Planning Permission, Ventilation Shaft Rights
Professional Negligence Property Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Commercial Lease Planning Permission Ventilation Shaft Rights

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balogun

Claimant/applicant

Boyes Sutton & Perry

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitors failed to advise on the risk regarding the right to use the ventilation shaft under the underlease
  2. 2 Whether the solicitors were negligent in failing to request confirmation of planning authority approval for installation of flues and ducting

Ratio Decidendi

There is a realistic prospect that the judge was in error regarding the solicitor's duty to advise on the risk of lack of rights to use the ventilation shaft and to seek planning authority confirmation; permission to appeal is granted on both grounds.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on both grounds sought by the applicant