Worldwide Corporation Ltd v Marconi Communications Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1999 |
| Date | 21 June 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal.
Before Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Mance
Practice - assurances given by counsel in open court - allegation that counsel negligent - clients bound by assurances
The rule that clients were ordinarily bound by assurances given in open court by counsel applied even where a claim in negligence might lie against counsel in respect of his conduct of the case for which he might be able to claim immunity.
The Court of Appeal so held in dismissing the application of the plaintiffs, Worldwide Corporation Ltd, for permission to appeal against the decisions of Mr Justice Moore-Bick in the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division on December 21, 1998 refusing to grant an adjournment of their action for breach of contract and entering judgment for the defendants, Marconi Communications Ltd, formerly GPT Ltd, and GPT (Middle East) Ltd.
Mr Christopher Carr, QC, who did not appear below, and Mr Michael Norman for the plaintiffs; Mr Peter Scott, QC and Mr Craig Orr for the defendants.
LORD JUSTICE WALLER said that the judge had given judgment for the defendants in effect in default.
He had held that the plaintiffs through their leading counsel then instructed had abandoned their original primary claim for breach of contract in the context of seeking leave to amend to plead a different primary claim.
He had further held that once leave to amend had been refused, the plaintiffs through the same leading counsel had confirmed that abandonment, and had made it clear that they had no intention of continuing with the original points of claim.
He had thus held that it was not open to the plaintiffs through a different leading counsel to resuscitate the claim as first pleaded
and continue with that claim and, in particular, it was not open to the plaintiffs to have an adjournment for that purpose while the new leading counsel read himself into the case.
Mr Carr had not challenged the fact that former leading counsel had abandoned the original claim on behalf of the plaintiffs as part of his strategy to try to win the argument that leave to amend should be given, otherwise the plaintiffs would not have a claim.
It was, as Mr Carr put it, a high risk strategy and the whole thrust of his submission was that the risk was such that it showed that former leading counsel had been negligent in the way he had advised the plaintiffs and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Memory Corporation and Another v Sidhu and Another
...1996; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 386 of 1996, C.A. Worldwide Corporation Ltd. v. Marconi Communications Ltd., The Times, 7 July 1999; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1073 of 1999, Appeal from Hart J. On 27 January 1999 Hart J. granted an application made......