Court reinstates counterclaim in solicitor negligence case

5 Mar 2025Court Report

The High Court reinstated a counterclaim in a solicitor negligence case involving unpaid fees and alleged biased judicial proceedings

Background and Legal Context

The High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Evans vs Hughes Fowler Carruthers Ltd, concerning a solicitor's duty to advise on their own negligence and the applicability of equitable set-off. The case arose from a claim by Hughes Fowler Carruthers Ltd (HFC) for approximately £90,000 in unpaid fees from their former client, Jenifer Evans. Evans counterclaimed, alleging negligence by HFC in handling her divorce proceedings, which she argued led to a mistrial and substantial wasted costs.

The Appeal's Core Issues

The appeal focused on two primary issues: whether HFC had a duty to advise Evans about their own potential negligence, and whether Evans could rely on equitable set-off against HFC's claim for fees. The original trial judge had dismissed Evans' counterclaim summarily, but the High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Adam Johnson, found merit in Evans' appeal, allowing the counterclaim to be reinstated.

Duty to Advise on Own Negligence

Evans argued that HFC had a duty to inform her of their potential negligence in handling her case, particularly after a conflict of interest arose involving the presiding judge, Mostyn J. The High Court found that the trial judge had placed undue emphasis on the lack of third-party intervention, such as from Farrer & Co. or the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and had not sufficiently considered whether HFC should have known about the significant risk of their earlier conduct being negligent.

Equitable Set-off Considerations

On the issue of equitable set-off, the High Court disagreed with the trial judge's conclusion that the claim and counterclaim arose from separate transactions. The High Court recognised that both the claim for fees and the counterclaim for negligence stemmed from the same overarching legal representation and divorce proceedings, thus justifying the application of equitable set-off.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment highlights the nuanced considerations involved in determining a solicitor's duty to advise on their own negligence, particularly in cases where the negligence may have been apparent to the client. It also clarifies the criteria for equitable set-off, emphasising the importance of a close connection between the claim and counterclaim.

Impact on Legal Practice

This decision serves as a crucial reminder for solicitors about the importance of transparency and the need to advise clients on potential claims against them, especially in situations involving conflicts of interest. It also reinforces the equitable set-off doctrine, ensuring that claims and counterclaims arising from the same legal relationship are considered together.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision to reinstate Evans' counterclaim underscores the need for careful judicial consideration of the facts and legal principles in cases involving solicitor negligence and equitable set-off. The ruling provides valuable guidance for legal practitioners on managing client relationships and potential conflicts of interest.