Paul Richards & Anor. v Speechly Bircham LLP & Anor.

Paul Richards & Anor. v Speechly Bircham LLP & Anor.

The defendant solicitors breached their duty of care by failing to advise the claimants of the significant risk that the RPP could be construed to apply to the valuation of shares on a Good Leaver event, a risk which subsequently materialised. The claimants would have walked away from the transaction had they been properly advised, and there was a 75% chance they would have secured an alternative deal at a higher value. The claimants' loss is the difference between the value they would have received and what they actually received, less appropriate credits. The claimants were not contributorily at fault for their dismissal or for the way the construction argument was run in the earlier...

Parties
Claimant: Paul Richards; Claimant: Keith Purves; Defendant: Speechly Bircham LLP; Defendant: Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Interpretation of Company Articles, Loss of a Chance, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Valuation of Shares
Professional Negligence Contract Law Company Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Interpretation of Company Articles Loss of a Chance Causation Contributory Negligence +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Richards

Claimant

Keith Purves

Claimant

Speechly Bircham LLP

Defendant

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant solicitors breached their duty of care in failing to advise on the risk that the Redemption Premium Provision (RPP) could apply to the valuation of shares on a Good Leaver event
  2. 2 Whether the claimants suffered loss as a result of the alleged breach
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were contributorily at fault or failed to mitigate their loss

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant solicitors breached their duty of care by failing to advise the claimants of the significant risk that the RPP could be construed to apply to the valuation of shares on a Good Leaver event, a risk which subsequently materialised. The claimants would have walked away from the transaction had they been properly advised, and there was a 75% chance they would have secured an alternative deal at a higher value. The claimants' loss is the difference between the value they would have received and what they actually received, less appropriate credits. The claimants were not contributorily at fault for their dismissal or for the way the construction argument was run in the earlier...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimants damages in the combined sum of £1,454,000
  • No reduction for contributory fault