French v Carter Lemon Camerons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | JOHN BOWERS QC |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 3252 (QB) |
| Date | 18 November 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Claim No: QB/2010/0505 |
[2011] EWHC 3252 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL
John Bowers Qc (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Claim No: QB/2010/0505
The Claimant appeared in person.
MR SMYTH (Partner of Carter Lemon) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Approved Judgment
Friday, 18 November, 2011
This is a relatively straightforward matter that has become very complicated. The analysis has not been helped by the presentation of a rather chaotic bundle which does not follow any chronological sequence. It concerns the consequences arising from proceedings between Miss French and Groupama for breach of contract, which resulted in a trial heard by His Honour Judge Seymour QC. Miss French appeared before me as a litigant in person, assisted by a McKenzie friend. She was, at least at the time of the 2010 hearing, a secretary at Leigh Day, Solicitors. She has very helpfully produced a 75-paragraph skeleton argument, closely reasoned, which has been very helpful and includes careful research on the relevant issue in domestic and Commonwealth cases.
The respondent, Carter Lemon Camerons llp, were instructed as the second solicitors in preparation for the trial, which was due to come on, and did come on, in October 2010. The events with which this hearing and then the appeal were concerned predated that trial and involved the enforcement of a lien. Nicola Davis J refused leave to appeal from Master Foster's order on the papers. Kenneth Parker J, on an oral application fgor permission to appealgranted leave. Miss French subsequently succeeded substantially at the trial, where she was represented by a third set of solicitors. An issue from the trial in relation to costs went to the Court of Appeal, and I have read both judgments. I am told that the detailed assessment of costs hearing is fixed for three days in May 2012.
I now set out the relevant events chronologically in relation to this appeal.
The first solicitors for Miss French in relation to the action against Groupama were Lorrells, and they sent a client care letter to Miss French on 7 July 2008. In November 2009 the respondent here first became involved, I think originally in a somewhat informal manner. On 19 February 2010 they attended at Lorrells' offices to collect files, which were in a state of disarray. On 19 March 2010 a conditional fee agreement was signed with the respondent, and on 24 March 2010 the respondent went on record in the proceedings. Relationships originally between Miss French and Miss Monk, who had been recommended to her, were good, but they gradually deteriorated. It is events in May 2010 with which this application is particularly concerned, so I must consider them in some detail.
On 13 May 2010 Miss French claims that the respondent "positively disinstructed themselves on the basis that I had made a formal complaint". There were various relevant interchanges on that day. First, at 07.56 a letter (page 143 of the bundle) sent by email in response to an email from Miss Monk on the previous day at 13.01 dealing with various complaints Miss French had, in which Miss French writes:
"Dear Mariel,
There is little I can do when you do not keep me informed, when you ignore information and dismiss correspondence that I have carefully sent to you, or you ignore or refuse to answer straightforward questions that any client deserves clarification of – this is what precipitates such unnecessary correspondence.
Obviously if you have overlooked something then that needs to be rectified, but it is no solution for you to keep bullying me into submission or to continue making false accusations or innuendos against me. That only serves to undermine our solicitor/client relationship – where trust is paramount.
I have avoided saying anything until now but this cannot continue. Please, it would be better service if your responses from here on contained constructive and factual information on the case."
Miss French says in her witness statement at paragraph 24 (page 33.6 of the bundle) that this was written
"at a point where I had reached the end of my tether with the unprofessional and questionable behaviour of that particular solicitor who had persistently bullied me, did not appear to want to follow perfectly reasonable instructions, had not been 'up front' with me or kept me informed, and so it became necessary to articulate this in correspondence."
At 2 p.m. that day, Miss French received a phonecall at work, which she describes as "intrusive", and she suggests that Mr Smyth, who made that call, thereby terminated the retainer improperly on the basis that she had made a complaint against the firm. She says that in that call Mr Smyth said that the only basis on which the firm would continue to act is if she withdrew the complaints. It is agreed, however, that Mr Smyth indicated that the firm would continue to represent Miss French at a CMC on the following day because of its proximity.
A further important email was sent by Miss French at 22.43 on that same day, 13 May, where she says, amongst other things:
"You did not require any instruction from me in order to reply to the Defendant's facsimile of earlier this week even though I did so. I even suggested that you confirm with the Master the wording of his Order and take it from there, but you have not responded to my emails…We could have sorted all this out this afternoon and there would have been no need for this further correspondence."
On the following day, Miss Monk did attend the CMC before Master Foster. Miss French says that she misled the court on that occasion by saying she had no instructions from Miss French, when she in fact had. The respondents, in response, say that Miss French only arrived halfway through the appointment, and she had not been able, therefore, to give specific instructions on the day, as one would expect at the commencement of the hearing. That is alone what Miss Monk was referring to by saying that she did not have proper instructions. Miss French says that the respondent did not at that hearing act in her best interests. Indeed, in her skeleton argument at paragraph 52 she says quite the reverse:
"[Miss Monk and I] attended the CMC on 14 May 2010 in order to protect [the respondent's] interests, not to act in [her own interests]…and misled the court."
On 24 May there was a further set of complaints against Miss Monk, and on 26 May Mr Newth, a consultant for the respondent, wrote to Miss French:
"You have now confirmed to me that you have specific allegations against this firm. First you allege serious misconduct. Secondly you allege negligence and assert that the negligence has caused you substantial prejudice and gives you an entitlement to compensation. I must recommend that you take independent legal advice on those matters which are outside my remit. I have to report that aspect to the firm while I continue with the internal complaints procedures.
As to continuing to act in the light of these allegations, it is almost inconceivable in my view that a firm can continue to represent a client's best interests – pursuing that client's case against a third party –whilst defending itself against allegations by that same client where the client is claiming damages for negligence of the firm. Where allegations such as this give rise to a conflict of interest, the Solicitors Rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heather French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
...DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MR BOWERS QC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT [2011] EWHC 3252 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr Justice Morgan Case No: A2/2011/3......