header-logo header-logo

Solicitors not responsible for stressed clients

05 October 2016
Issue: 7717 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Solicitors conducting litigation do not assume liability for the stress imposed on their clients, the High Court has held.

Delivering judgment in Guney v Kingsley Napley [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB), Mrs Justice McGowan criticised the claimant, Gonul Guney, for bringing a “regrettable” professional liability claim against her family’s solicitors in a wills dispute.

Guney argued that she could have settled the claim at an earlier date had she been properly advised, and claimed damages for stress and inconvenience as well as losses. She said she was not claiming for personal injury, but “for physical consequences arising out of a breach of contract”.

Kingsley Napley called for the claims surrounding stress and inconvenience to be struck out.

Ruling in favour of Kingsley Napley, McGowan J said: “This was a not a contract for the provision of a holiday, a pleasurable activity relaxation or peace of mind.

“This was a contract to act in relation to a family dispute over inheritance matters. It is too remote to say that solicitors conducting litigation assume liability for the stresses that that imposes on the litigants involved. It is difficult to imagine what would happen to litigation if there was such a general duty.”

Issue: 7717 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll