2020-03-07
Legal Articles

Access to relevant evidence is allowed in solicitor's claim

Home / Knowledge base / Access to relevant evidence is allowed in solicitor's claim

Posted by Susan Hopcraft on 10 October 2012

Susan Hopcraft - Professional Negligence Lawyer
Susan Hopcraft Partner

When you make a claim against a solicitor you need to allow third parties to review the advice that was given. You have to waive the legal privilege that normally protects the confidentiality of legal advice.

That does not normally pose a problem, since if a solicitor has made a mistake then correcting it is usually the priority rather than keeping your affairs and advice confidential. The solicitor’s file is open to view, warts and all. 

In a recent case there was a question over whether the barrister’s file was also open to the other side to review, where both parties referred to the barrister’s advice in their pleadings.

Hellard v Irwin Mitchell

In Hellard v Irwin Mitchell a negligence claim was made against solicitors who, it was alleged, had failed to advise and/or issue a claim in time to beat the relevant time bar defence against a financial adviser. The negligence claim against the solicitor was valued at £1.3m, largely being the wasted costs of the failed financial adviser claim.

The defendant firm argued that, by bringing the professional negligence claim, the claimant had impliedly waived the client's legal privilege in the original proceedings, meaning not just the solicitor’s own file but the papers of the barrister who had worked with the solicitor on the claim. This would allow the defendant to approach the barrister to obtain witness statements.

The claimants accepted that the bringing of the negligence claim operated as a waiver of privilege over the solicitor’s file in the original proceedings, but argued that the barrister’s file remained privileged, as the barrister had not been sued.

The decision

Judge Purle QC noted that the point was not directly governed by any previous legal authority, but wanted to prevent ‘cherry picking’ of evidence.  He wanted to ensure that the parties had fair access to relevant evidence rather than allowing one party to make a case based on the solicitor’s file, but not another key part, the barrister’s papers. Taking the example of a piece of the solicitor file that would be disclosed, a file note of the barrister’s oral advice, he decided that it was appropriate for the barrister’s file to be available too, to enable a proper assessment of the advice given. Fairness required that the defendants should be able to rely on all evidence of relevant privileged communications.

This case shows a strong hand by the courts in allowing access to relevant evidence despite the very strong shield that legal privilege often represents.

About the author

Susan is a disputes and professional negligence lawyer, mainly in the financial services sector.

Susan Hopcraft

Susan is a disputes and professional negligence lawyer, mainly in the financial services sector.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
Contact
How can we help?
01926 732512
CALL BACK