ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MITTING J)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT
SCHUBERT MURPHY
Claimant/Applicant
-v-
THE LAW SOCIETY
Defendant/Respondent
(Digital Audio Transcript of
WordWave International Limited Trading as DTI
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr T Dutton QC & Mr R Allen (instructed by Bevan Brittan) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
J U D G M E N T (Approved)
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I do not need to rehearse the facts because they have been fully set out in the judgment of Mitting J, dated 17th December 2014, that is the subject of this renewed application for permission to appeal.
Mr Timothy Dutton QC and Mr Rupert Allen wish to argue on behalf of The Law Society the following issue: is there a real prospect of establishing that the Law Society owed a duty of care to the claimant arising out of the performance of its (statutory) functions?
For present purposes The Law Society is prepared to accept all the claimant's assertions of fact.
I understand the concerns of Mitting J, to ensure that all matters are resolved during the course of the same proceedings and the concerns of Briggs LJ, who refused permission to appeal, given the inevitable delay that would result if permission is granted. However, as Briggs LJ observed, the Law Society has advanced a powerful case that it has a very strong prospect of a successful defence to the claim.
I have considered Mr Dutton's written and oral submissions and a number of previous decisions put before me with some care. Having done so, I am satisfied that the Law Society also has a strong prospect of successfully arguing on appeal that they did not owe a duty of care. If so, there would be no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim and/or no reasonable prospect of establishing a claim.
The issue of whether or not a duty of care existed on the facts here is a discrete point of law. It can be resolved in a day's hearing. The alternative now is a 5 to 7 day trial with witnesses, in the High Court, not taking place till some time until late 2016, if not later, followed by an almost inevitable appeal to this court on the point that Mr Dutton wishes to argue now. The delay about which Briggs LJ had concerns has now occurred.
It seems to me that the best and most effective course today, given the strength of the arguments advanced by Mr Dutton, is to grant permission to appeal.
The appeal will be listed before three Lord or Lady Justices. It will be a one-day hearing subject to notification by the parties. They are to advise the court if that estimate is accurate, once they have had an opportunity to discuss the appeal and narrow any issues. Once they have agreed on a reading list they should inform the court of the reading time required.