First round ‘knock-out’ for solicitor/barrister professional negligence claim

The High Court has granted summary judgment in a £10.2 million professional negligence claim brought against solicitors and barristers.

The Claimant, Kamran Naqvi, was employed as a private banker for Lloyds Banking Group.  He was dismissed following allegations that he had accepted gifts and undertaken external work (during working hours) for former world heavyweight and cruiserweight boxing champion David Haye and his company Hayemaker Limited.

Mr. Naqvi instructed solicitors to act for him in an Employment Tribunal claim against the bank.  In the Tribunal the unfair dismissal claim succeeded but the claims of race discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

The Claimant then brought this claim of professional negligence against his former solicitors and barrister alleging that they had failed to properly formulate, pursue or present the claim of race discrimination in the Tribunal.  He sought damages for his loss of chance to pursue that claim and quantified those damages at just over £10.2 million.

The claim (Naqvi v Harris Cartier and others) came before the High Court in October and the Judge considered applications for summary judgment made by three of the four Defendants.

Summary judgment is a mechanism by which the Court may enter judgment for a party to litigation, without a trial, where the claim/issue/defence has no real prospect of success and where there is no other compelling reason for a trial.  The relevant rules are at Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules and it is a high hurdle to overcome.

Here the Claimant submitted that his former legal advisers had instructions and information and that they should have ‘joined the dots’ in order to formulate the race discrimination claims.  However the Judge decided that:

            “…the Claimant did not provide those dots, either in terms of the factual account he gave to his     lawyers or in terms of the concerns he raised about his treatment.  The Claimant would            understandably look to his lawyers to formulate his complaints as legal causes of action,          obtaining further instructions where necessary to enable this; but it was not their role to think   up complaints he was not making or seek out discrimination claims that had not been raised.  Still less, could it be negligent to fail to do so”.

The Judge granted the summary judgment Applications and ordered costs against the Claimant.

One of the four Defendants did not make an Application for summary judgment and it remains to be seen whether the Claimant will get up off the canvas and seek permission to appeal in respect of the other three.

The highlights to parties pursuing or defending professional negligence claims, of the importance of considering at an early stage whether the conduct or failure complained of was within the scope of duty of the professional.  Here the retainer was to act in the Employment Tribunal claim and with the usual implied duty to use the reasonable skill and care expected of employment law specialists.  The Judge held that the matters complained of were not within that duty.