Guy v Pannone LLP

Guy v Pannone LLP

The appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable cross-claim in negligence because he countermanded his instructions to register a caution, and any alleged breach by the solicitors did not cause loss due to Barclays' priority. No actionable conflict of interest or breach of duty was established.

Parties
Appellant: Trevor Guy; Respondent: Pannone LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Cross Claim, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Conflict of Interest
Bankruptcy Professional Negligence Statutory Demand Cross Claim Solicitor's Duty of Care Conflict of Interest

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Guy

Appellant

Pannone LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal to Set Aside Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a viable cross-claim in negligence against his solicitors sufficient to set aside a statutory demand
  2. 2 Whether the solicitors acted negligently in failing to register a caution or notify the appellant of relevant information
  3. 3 Whether there was a conflict of interest due to the solicitors' prior knowledge of the opposing party's fraudulent conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable cross-claim in negligence because he countermanded his instructions to register a caution, and any alleged breach by the solicitors did not cause loss due to Barclays' priority. No actionable conflict of interest or breach of duty was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to be paid by the appellant