Optical Services and Ors -v- Carey Olsen and Ors [2014] JRC 208A (29 October 2014)

Optical Services and Ors -v- Carey Olsen and Ors [2014] JRC 208A (29 October 2014)

No duty of care is owed by a lawyer to the opponent of his client in adversarial litigation absent a specific assumption of responsibility, and breach of the Jersey Law Society Code of Conduct does not create a civil cause of action in favour of an opponent. There is no lacuna in the law as the plaintiffs had or still have remedies for costs via the court system.

Citation
[2014] JRC 208A
Parties
Landlords (eviction Plaintiffs): Mr and Mrs Allenet; Tenant (current Plaintiff): First Plaintiff; Guarantor/tenant (current Plaintiff): Second Plaintiff; Partner at Law Firm (defendant): Second Defendant; Advocate With Day to Day Responsibility (defendant): Third Defendant; Law Firm (defendant): First Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care of Lawyers, Costs in Litigation, Law Society Code of Conduct, Adversarial Litigation, Wasted Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Duty of Care of Lawyers Costs in Litigation Law Society Code of Conduct Adversarial Litigation Wasted Costs Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Allenet

Landlords (eviction Plaintiffs)

First Plaintiff

Tenant (current Plaintiff)

Second Plaintiff

Guarantor/tenant (current Plaintiff)

Second Defendant

Partner at Law Firm (defendant)

Third Defendant

Advocate With Day to Day Responsibility (defendant)

First Defendant

Law Firm (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lawyer owes a duty of care to the opponent of his client in adversarial litigation
  2. 2 Whether a breach of the Jersey Law Society Code of Conduct gives rise to a civil cause of action by an opponent
  3. 3 Whether there is a lacuna in the law regarding recovery of costs when jurisdiction is declined

Ratio Decidendi

No duty of care is owed by a lawyer to the opponent of his client in adversarial litigation absent a specific assumption of responsibility, and breach of the Jersey Law Society Code of Conduct does not create a civil cause of action in favour of an opponent. There is no lacuna in the law as the plaintiffs had or still have remedies for costs via the court system.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed