Riley v Pickersgill and Le Cornu [2002] JCA 169 (13 September 2002)

Riley v Pickersgill and Le Cornu [2002] JCA 169 (13 September 2002)

Mr Pickersgill owed a duty to Mr Riley to investigate or advise on the financial standing of the indemnifier; he breached that duty. The breach caused the loss, as Mr Riley would likely have avoided the risk if properly advised. The claim was not prescribed, as the breach causing damage occurred within ten years. Mr Riley did not fail to mitigate his loss except for a deduction for not accepting a settlement offer. Interest is awarded from 19 July 1996.

Citation
[2002] JCA 169
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Adrian Riley; Defendant/appellant: Barry Keith Pickersgill; Defendant/appellant: David Eldon Le Cornu
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; damages reduced.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Prescription, Causation, Mitigation of Damages, Interest on Damages
Professional Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Prescription Causation Mitigation of Damages Interest on Damages

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Adrian Riley

Plaintiff/respondent

Barry Keith Pickersgill

Defendant/appellant

David Eldon Le Cornu

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitor owed a duty of care to the client regarding the financial standing of the indemnifier
  2. 2 Whether the claim was prescribed
  3. 3 Whether the breach caused the loss

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Pickersgill owed a duty to Mr Riley to investigate or advise on the financial standing of the indemnifier; he breached that duty. The breach caused the loss, as Mr Riley would likely have avoided the risk if properly advised. The claim was not prescribed, as the breach causing damage occurred within ten years. Mr Riley did not fail to mitigate his loss except for a deduction for not accepting a settlement offer. Interest is awarded from 19 July 1996.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; damages reduced.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to Mr Riley in the sum of £56,152.98
  • Interest awarded from 19 July 1996 at 2% over base rate