Hiseman v Janes [2001] EWCA Civ 1007 (18 June 2001)

Hiseman v Janes [2001] EWCA Civ 1007 (18 June 2001)

The application was dismissed because the claim was statute barred, there was no evidence of negligence by the solicitor, and any failures after 1993 did not prevent time from running for limitation purposes. The judge found that the applicant suffered no loss beyond the deposit and that the solicitor's conduct met the required standard.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1007
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Hiseman; Respondent: David Janes; Respondent: Janes (a Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Solicitor's Negligence, Conveyancing, Extension of Time, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Solicitor's Negligence Conveyancing Extension of Time Permission to Appeal

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Hiseman

Applicant

David Janes

Respondent

Janes (a Firm)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim against his former solicitor was statute barred
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor was negligent in the conveyancing transaction and subsequent litigation
  3. 3 Whether failures by the solicitor after 1993 could extend the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the claim was statute barred, there was no evidence of negligence by the solicitor, and any failures after 1993 did not prevent time from running for limitation purposes. The judge found that the applicant suffered no loss beyond the deposit and that the solicitor's conduct met the required standard.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • No extension of time granted