Thomas v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors

Thomas v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors

Solicitors are not in breach of duty when they respect an adult client's decision not to pursue a head of claim for which the client says he cannot provide supporting evidence, especially in the context of a fixed costs, high volume scheme.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Graham Thomas; Defendant/respondent: Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Client Autonomy, Scope of Retainer, Fixed Costs Litigation, Personal Injury Claims
Professional Negligence Tort Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Client Autonomy Scope of Retainer Fixed Costs Litigation Personal Injury Claims

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Thomas

Claimant/appellant

Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitors acting in a high volume, fixed costs scheme for low value personal injury cases are under a duty to advise about heads of claim which the client has said he does not wish to pursue and for which he says that he cannot provide supporting evidence
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide valuation or information about interim payments constitutes breach of duty

Ratio Decidendi

Solicitors are not in breach of duty when they respect an adult client's decision not to pursue a head of claim for which the client says he cannot provide supporting evidence, especially in the context of a fixed costs, high volume scheme.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed