Description

ALL ENG. LR. ARTHUR VS HALLV SOMON

THE

ALL ENGLAND

LAW REPORTS

2000

Volume 3

Editor-in-chief

CAROLINE VANDRIDGE-AMES LLM

Editor

CRAIG ROSE Barrister

London

BUTTERWORTHS

Alt England L Reports 9 August 2000

Arthur J S Hall v Simons

Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons

a

Barratt v Ansell and others (trading as Woolf

Seddon (a firm))

Harris v Scholfield Roberts & Hill (a firm) and b     another

HOUSE OF LORDS

LORD STEYN. LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON, LORD HOFFMANN, LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD, c LORD Hi-rrroN. LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH AND LORD MILLETT

27-30 MARCH, 20JULY 2000

Counsel — Negligence — Immunity — Whether advocates still entitled to immunityfrom suit in respect ofthcir conduct ofproceedings.

d

In three separate cases, clients brought claims for negligence against their former solicitors. In each case, the solicitors relied on the immunity of advocates from suits for negligence, and the claims were initially struck out as unsustainable. However, the Court of Appeal subsequently held that the claims fell outside the scope of the immunity and that accordingly they should not have been struck OUt. On the solicitors’ appeals to the House of Lords, their Lordships considered whether the immunity should be abolished or whether it could still be justified on public policy grounds, particularly the public interest in preventing collateral attacks on court Aarisions and in ensuring that advocates respected their overriding duty to the court.

Held — Advocates no longer enjoyed immunity from  of their conduct of civil and (Lord Hope, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse dissentillg,ž criminal proceedings. Such an immunity was not needed to deal with collateral attacks on criminal and civil decisions. Rather, the public interest was sati.çfactorily

g Protected Challenge to by a independent subsisting criminal principles conviction and pow-srs ould Of ordinarilv the court bc A struck collateral out as civilan

abuse of process, but the public policy against quch a challenge would no longer bar an action in negligence by a client had succeeded In having his COnviction sct aside. Sž:nilarly, the principles Of res iltdicatd. issue estoppel and abuse of process as understood in private law should be adequate to cope with h the risk of collateral challenges to civil decisions. Nor was the itnmunitv needed to ensure that advocates would respect their dutv to the court. In that respect, a Comparison with other professionals was important. Doctors, for example, were SOmetimes faced with a tension between their dutics to their patients and their duties to an ethical scode. but nobody argued that thev have an im:nunity j from suits in negligence. Furthermore, i’l other jurisdictions, particularlv Canada. tended to demonstrate that i! was duly pessimistic to fear that the possibility of actions in negligence wou •ne the public interest in ad’ respecting their duty to the COttt t. cr. bencfits would be

                    674                           All England Law Reports    [20001 3 All ER

an advocate                  to the           to

 

peKormance by of-his duty the clien4 could never be called neöigent, and there would be no Þs£lity of the coun holding an advocate to be neØigent if his conduct was bona fide dictated by his . percepdon of his duty to the Moreover, would take into account the difficult ñced daily by barristers working in demanding situadons

• to dmeäbles. The     could be trusted to differendate between

in any               face the very Beat obstacle ofshowing that a better standard ofaåvocaq would have resulted in a more ñvourable outcome. Unmeritorious claims against barristers would be out, and the CPR had made it easier to dispose summarily ofsuch claims. Moreover, from weakening the legal system, the abolidon of the immunity would sa•engthen it by isolated of incompetence at the Bar. In conEast, confidence in the legal system would be eroded if advocates, alone among profesionals, were immune from liability in neg.igence. It followed that it was no longer the public interest to maintain the immunity in fivour of advocates, and accordingy the appeals would be dismissed (see p 681 d to g, p 682a b, p 683 a to p 684 a cd, p 685 b to dg, p 686 d tog p 691 a b h to p 692 b, p 693 g, p 695 stop 696 p 704 b c, p 706 c tof, p 7074 p 711 j, p 724 a b, p 725 j, p 727dng p 729 a, p 734 a to 4 p 742 c, p p 748 a, p c j and p 751 e, post). Rondel v Worslq [1967) 3 All ER 993 not Notes For the immunity from suit ofbarristers and other advocates, see 3(1) Halsbuw’s

b e

14. ALL ENG. LR. ARTHUR VS HALLV SOMON-1-2