Capital Home Loans Ltd v Hewitt and Gilpin Solicitors Ltd [2016] NICA 45 (21 November 2016)

Capital Home Loans Ltd v Hewitt and Gilpin Solicitors Ltd [2016] NICA 45 (21 November 2016)

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that, had it been fully informed of the particulars of the transactions, it would not have advanced the mortgage monies. The absence of direct evidence from underwriters was fatal to causation. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2016] NICA 45
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Capital Home Loans Limited; Respondent/defendant: Hewitt and Gilpin Solicitors Limited (sued as a firm)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Commercial) to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Duties, Causation of Loss, Contributory Negligence, Mortgage Lending, Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty
Professional Negligence Contract Law Banking and Finance Solicitors' Duties Causation of Loss Contributory Negligence Mortgage Lending Breach of Contract +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital Home Loans Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Hewitt and Gilpin Solicitors Limited (sued as a firm)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Commercial) to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitors breached their duty to the lender client under the retainer and CML Handbook
  2. 2 Whether the breach of duty by the solicitors caused loss to the lender
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence applies to the lender's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that, had it been fully informed of the particulars of the transactions, it would not have advanced the mortgage monies. The absence of direct evidence from underwriters was fatal to causation. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed