Lonsdale vs Wedlake Bell LLP

This case involved a dispute over alleged negligent legal advice provided by a solicitor regarding a family trust, and the procedural issues surrounding the service of claim forms.

TLDR:

• Claimants alleged negligent advice by the Third Defendant regarding a family trust.
• Dispute over whether the July Claim Form or December Claim Form should proceed.
• High Court ruled that the July Claim Form was not validly served and set aside its service.

The Claimants, James Lonsdale and others, issued a claim form in July 2021 alleging that the Third Defendant, Ann Stanyer, provided negligent advice in June 2011 regarding the Sparsholt Settlement, a trust created by Mr. Lonsdale in 1987 for his family's benefit. The advice allegedly failed to properly address the inclusion of Mr. Lonsdale's nieces and nephews as beneficiaries, contrary to his intent.

The July Claim Form was emailed to the Defendants' solicitors but not formally served. The parties agreed to a stay for mediation discussions, and an extension for service was agreed until 1 December 2021. However, the Claim Form was not served until 19 January 2022, leading to procedural disputes.

The Defendants filed an application to set aside the July Claim Form for lack of jurisdiction, while the Claimants sought declarations validating the late service or treating the claim form as served in time. The court had to determine whether the Claimants could rely on the July Claim Form or proceed with a subsequently issued December Claim Form.

The court found that the Claimants failed to serve the July Claim Form within the agreed extended period and did not take reasonable steps to effect service. The Defendants' conduct was deemed reasonable, and the court rejected the Claimants' estoppel argument, finding no unequivocal representation by the Defendants to waive procedural rights.

The court also considered the application under CPR r. 6.15(2) to validate the email as good service but found no good reason to do so, noting the Claimants' lack of diligence. The application under CPR r. 6.16 to dispense with service was also dismissed as there were no exceptional circumstances.

The High Court ultimately set aside the service of the July Claim Form, ruling that it had expired by the time it was served, and thus, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims in the July Claim Form.

Legal representatives: Sarah Haren QC (instructed by Archer, Evrard & Sigurdsson LLP) for the Claimants, David Halpern QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the Defendants.

Judicial Panel: John Kimbell QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case Citation Reference: [2022] EWHC 2169 (QB)