Greymalkin Ltd v Copleys (a firm), Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, May 18, 2004, [2007] Lloyd's Rep PN 26,[2004] EWHC 1155 (Ch)
Linked as:
Extract
Greymalkin Ltd v Copleys (a firm), Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, May 18, 2004, [2007] Lloyd's Rep PN 26,[2004] EWHC 1155 (Ch)
21
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 1155 (Ch)Case No: HC 01 03356(TLC 331/03)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 18th May 2004Before :MR JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr Geraint Jones QC (instructed by Darwin Gray) for the ClaimantMr Andrew Macnab (instructed by Henmans) for the DefendantsHearing dates: 22nd, 23rd, 24th & 26th March 2004- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMr Justice Lawrence Collins : I Introduction1. The claimant, Greymalkin Ltd (``Greymalkin''), seeks damages against the defendant firm of solicitors, Messrs Copleys, of Huntingdon, for professional negligence arising out of Copleys' handling of Greymalkin's purchase of the Garden House Hotel, Hunstanton, Norfolk, together with adjacent land (``the property'') in 1993. The property is a seafront property which was purchased by Greymalkin with a view to converting it into flats, including bed sitting-rooms.2. In June 1993 Greymalkin purchased the property from a Mr William Stern. Mr Stern (advised by Messrs Thain & Co, of Hunstanton) had purchased the property from the administrative receivers (``the receivers'') of the previous owner Jaraworth Properties Ltd (``Jaraworth''), who had been appointed by Barclays Bank plc (``Barclays''). The property was subject to other charges, which were not overreached when the sale was made by the receivers. 3. In these proceedings Greymalkin sought damages from Copleys for its negligence in failing adequately to check the title adduced by Mr Stern, arising in particular from their failure to undertake a proper company search of Jaraworth, which had given charges not only to Barclays, but also to three other lenders. 4. Liability has been accepted by Copleys. On March 10, 2004 their solicitors wrote to Greymalkin's solicitors: ``......... we advise you that we are instructed to admit that the defendant acted in breach of contract and negligently in failing to inform the Claimant, by its agent Michael Quayle, before completion of the sale by Stern to the Claimant on the 10 June 1993, that there were three outstanding charges over the property, created by Jaraworth Ltd which would not be overreached by the sale by Jaraworth acting by its receivers to Stern and consequently the property would remain subject to those charges on completion of the sale by Stern to the Claimant.'' The issues in the trial therefore related only to causation and damage. 5. These proceedings were commenced as long ago as November 1998. The trial was originally fixed for November 2002, but the trial date was vacated after Greymalkin re-pleaded its case. The assessment of damages is complicated by three factors. The first is that until trial the main damages claim was put on a basis which was not supportable in law, and had to be recast at the last moment. The second factor is that the documentary evidence which formed the basis for the recast claim for damages is very thin. The third (and most important) factor is that the only person with first-hand knowledge of the matters relevant to most of the factual issues on causation and damages is Mr Michael Quayle, who was the prime mover behind the project. But he has had a series of strokes and was unfit to make a witness statement or give oral evidence. II The purchase of the property6. By 1992/1993 the property was owned by Jaraworth. The property was unregistered land and would have had to be registered by any purchaser. It was subject to charges in favour of Barclays: a legal mortgage da...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
