Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd (t/a Banner Jones Solicitors) [2021] EWCA Civ 7 (08 January 2021)

Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd (t/a Banner Jones Solicitors) [2021] EWCA Civ 7 (08 January 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred in law in applying the 'Phosphate Sewage test' as a general bar to Mr Allsop's professional negligence claims, and that the doctrine of abuse of process does not automatically preclude such claims unless they are manifestly unfair or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The correct approach is to consider whether the claims have a real prospect of success and whether allowing them to proceed would constitute an abuse of process in the specific circumstances. The Court reinstated certain claims and remitted others for further consideration.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 7
Parties
Appellant: Terry Allsop; First Respondent: Banner Jones Limited trading as Banner Jones Solicitors; Second Respondent: Rae Cohen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Legal Professional Negligence, Financial Remedies in Divorce
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Family Law Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Legal Professional 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Allsop

Appellant

Banner Jones Limited trading as Banner Jones Solicitors

First Respondent

Rae Cohen

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred in applying the 'Phosphate Sewage test' to strike out claims as collateral attacks on a prior judgment
  2. 2 Whether certain allegations against solicitors and counsel disclosed a reasonably arguable case or should be struck out/summarily dismissed
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of abuse of process precludes litigation of claims that would require revisiting findings of a previous court

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge erred in law in applying the 'Phosphate Sewage test' as a general bar to Mr Allsop's professional negligence claims, and that the doctrine of abuse of process does not automatically preclude such claims unless they are manifestly unfair or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The correct approach is to consider whether the claims have a real prospect of success and whether allowing them to proceed would constitute an abuse of process in the specific circumstances. The Court reinstated certain claims and remitted others for further consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Certain allegations struck out by the High Court judge were reinstated and remitted for further consideration.
  • Other allegations remained struck out where they disclosed no reasonably arguable case or were properly found abusive.