Minkin v Lesley Landsberg (Practising As Barnet Family Law)

Minkin v Lesley Landsberg (Practising As Barnet Family Law)

The solicitor was operating under a defined and limited retainer to draft the consent order reflecting the parties’ agreement. She was not under a duty to give broader advice or warnings about the merits of the agreement, possible unfairness, lack of disclosure, or duress, as these were either obvious to the claimant or had already been addressed by previous solicitors. The defendant fulfilled her duty under the retainer and was not negligent.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Sharon Minkin; Respondent/defendant: Lesley Landsberg (practising as Barnet Family Law)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (professional Negligence) / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal, Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Limited Retainer, Scope of Legal Advice, Consent Orders in Divorce, Causation of Loss, Damages in Negligence
Professional Negligence Family Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Limited Retainer Scope of Legal Advice Consent Orders in Divorce Causation of Loss Damages in Negligence

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 1 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Minkin

Appellant/claimant

Lesley Landsberg (practising as Barnet Family Law)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (professional Negligence) / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the extent of the solicitor’s duty to advise under a limited retainer?
  2. 2 Was the solicitor negligent in failing to give broader advice or warnings?
  3. 3 Did any breach of duty cause loss to the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The solicitor was operating under a defined and limited retainer to draft the consent order reflecting the parties’ agreement. She was not under a duty to give broader advice or warnings about the merits of the agreement, possible unfairness, lack of disclosure, or duress, as these were either obvious to the claimant or had already been addressed by previous solicitors. The defendant fulfilled her duty under the retainer and was not negligent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of the county court upheld.