|
Claimant's
level of knowledge (as a former solicitor) relevant when suing former
solicitors and counsel for negligence.
The claimant,
Mr Karberry, sued his solicitors and barrister in respect of the negligent
handling of a clinical negligence claim against his general practitioner.
Mr Karberry was a former solicitor who had been prescribed a drug, Dalmane,
of the Benzo-Diozepiane class of drugs. He claimed that as a result
he suffered a personality change that lead to his being struck of the
roll of solicitors, being made bankrupt, and also to his criminal trial
for theft and false accounting (of which he was acquitted). Ultimately
he suffered the loss of value income as a solicitor and other capital
losses. Mr Karberry made various allegations of negligence against the
solicitors including that they had failed to issue or advise on the
issue of a writ. It was alleged that the barrister was negligent in
not advising that proceedings should be issued before the criminal trial.
Mr Karberry's claims against his GP became statute barred.
The defendants
made a summary application to the court on the basis that at the date
when they ceased to act, the claim was not then statute barred and that
Mr Karberry, a practising solicitor of 20 years experience, was very
much alive to limitation issues. The trial judge held in the defendant's
favour and took the view that Mr Karberry's contention that the action
was lost as a result of the defendants' negligence had no prospect of
succeeding at trial and indeed was hopeless. It was also held that the
barrister's advice to delay issuing the writ was well within the range
of advice that a reasonably competent barrister would have given.
Mr Karberry
appealed on a number of grounds including that the chain of causation
had not been broken, that the damage was not too remote, and that the
trial judge had unfairly made assumptions about his knowledge and level
of experience and had wrongly carried out a mini trial. Upholding the
defendants' case, the Court of Appeal had held the trial judge was right
to conclude the chain of causation had been broken by Mr Karberry's
own failure to issue a writ. He had not lost the opportunity to pursue
his claim. All Mr Karberry's other arguments were held to be unjustified
or irrelevant.
|