England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Adrian Alan Ltd v Fuglers (a Firm) [2003] EWHC 9025 (Costs) (13 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9025.html
Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9025 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 



No.5 of 2003

---

Adrian Alan Ltd v Fuglers (a Firm)
13 November 2002
Court of Appeal, Brooke, Kay and Dyson LJ

Mr L, a struck off solicitor employed by the defendants with the permission of the Law Society, persuaded a managing director of the claimant company to transfer some on-going litigation from the firm he was then instructing to Fuglers, and to continue to use Mr L for that litigation. At no point did Mr L disclose that he was not a solicitor allowed to practice. Ultimately, due to L’s dishonesty, the claimant company suffered loss and litigation between the company and Fuglers ensued, which resulted in a judgment in the court below in favour of the claimant company for £23,911.25.

The principal point on the appeal was whether the defendant firm were vicariously responsible for the acts of Mr L. The solicitors sought to persuade the Court of Appeal to distinguish or not to follow the case of Pilbrow v Pearless de Rougemont & Co [1999] 3 All ER 355 (CA) but Brooke LJ, who delivered the only full judgment, refused to do that. Lord Justice Brooke said this:

"In my judgment, we should follow the reasoning of this court in the earlier case. In that case the client did not receive what he thought he was receiving because of a mistake within the solicitors’ firm. In the present case deliberate deceit was the cause. Any possible injustice this approach might be thought to create would be immediately tempered by a defence of change of position when the client claimed restitution for fees he had paid in the mistaken belief he was instructing a solicitor … The defence in this case which was not settled by Mr Parker [counsel for the defendants on the appeal] did not include such a plea."

In addition to upholding the award of damages made in the court below the Court of Appeal also directed the defendants to repay a sum of £3,000 paid by the claimants on account of costs to Mr L.