Delivered by solicitor Colm Nugent, this session dives into Personal Injury Advocacy.
Hello and welcome to this webinar, which today is on the case off rights against for Lucas, which concerns the professional on legal obligations. Ken's friends, My name is called Mutant. I'm a Barrister are have been for war 35 years. I'm on my practice from public chambers in Lincoln's Inn on a member off the insurance division. The case of right and trying at this wars, I think, unique in the sense that it was the first case which actually concerned the special obligations on whether in facts they'll do you care to build people who represented and if so what? That you can look up. It was heard a while ago, a few months ago in the High Court before Your honor Judge Jennifer E. D. Do you see Mr Justice still very Onda? It was a matter of which I was involved. Over the course of approximately five days, let me tell you a little bit about the case itself. I'm looking at papers slightly too, on my left side. So forgive me if I look away now again. The background to the case was that Mr Wright's waas a patient in the hospital and they have an operation. The operation went badly wrong. The operation left and with very significant story his abdomen it destroyed. Sit down the walls. Very significant cosmetic problems on bmore. Importantly, Impracticable seriously. When the operations undertaken, the surgeon left part of what is normative goals. A bag which is a plastic bag that used to keep the wound part that was part of it was left inside. Would that obviously prevented wound from healing over a long time that became infected? Ondas A consequence of that on the consequence of the way the operations carried out the matter was then that caused what is a lot off discomfort painted the Mr Right. I decided that he was going to sue the local energy trust. Um but he didn't have any sensitives. Couldn't find sisters who would take this case all on. And shortly before the expiry of the limitation period, he came across a firm called Troy Look. Person were based in Romford, which is near where he lived. A troll Lucas style themselves as the litigation camp ons they agreed to take on his measure on they agreed that they were chargeable. What unsuitable something. They agreed that they were charging approximately £150 per hour. They agreed that they would increase that if he received damages in excess of two of £50,000. That might seem like a phenomenal sum of money for a little friend. But Mr Writers of Options and the read you'll see on your screen on Troy Lucas is officers, and they may look not uptick imposing, but ultimately those the officers will be operated at home on, as they say they consider themselves to be litigation specialists on They said to Mr um like that they could offer the services of a sister, and they were as good, if not better, than any sister or in the advanced. We'll try Lucas tentative on the mat in the matter on Did they behaved very much as if they were a farmer solicitors. They fought all drafted to claim they drafted schedule loss, the revised schedule of lost witness evidence and all the letters they instructed the experts. They conducted to some extent the hearings, most of which were in the high court on TV. Um, they are heard various bits, vices to what to do. Um, and when it came to, for example, we're making receiving a six hours. Troy Lucas did well, for example, became appointed. What's the trusted, you might imagine, made a part 36 offer its try and settle libel that was rejected entirely on the some that Troy Lucas said to accept was beaten or somewhere north off pounds, which later rose to three million. Burying minded. The awful trust make very much, indeed, something usable. 16. Excuse me, where I just papers. The conduct of the claim was absolutely disastrous. Almost every step, which toilets to claim, made claim worse. They rejected 46 offer in a ludicrously high turned it offers. They effectively destroyed the prospect of any seven tall Um, they ended up with large parts of Mr White's claim being struck out because hey hadn't any evidence support of the very substantial strip loss, which had been drafted in Tony by true office. That meant he couldn't support on. Therefore, he came towards the summer before the came was her trial in the autumn in what she had witness evidence because they haven't produced any no real evidence because have obtained any he had a scheduled loss. You couldn't make art in there for most of it struck out and he had a part of the six people start standing on. He had made no ballot. Part six himself. Ultimately, the matter went for a judge. Um, the, uh, barest all she could be drafted in after trollers had being, in fact, tried to rescue the situation, but to mate. And therefore Mr Wright ends up accepting. He pointed six off late, been paying over just cost. So we got some modest damages. He ended up with the cost order against him in the summer of £18,000 off, which, when you think they're not come, in the case of what should have effectively open and shut the negative to win your claim, but to end up with a cost over off that magnitude. Waas Very quirk. Of course, Mr Wright had no insurance because Charlie was haven't taken out any. Didn't get obtaining. So Mr Wright's, um, after nursing his wounds off to the outcome of the high court case, decided that he was going to sue um 12 workers themselves. But there's a problem because there was no designated authorities to what's the duty of care old by doesn't just Mackenzie friend, for example, all the same duty secure sister doesn't can't find no different you just just So what are they pulls another issue, of course. Of what was the loss? Well, for what is that? The claim almost struck up because it was considered that Mr Wright had grossly exaggerated this thing. I say his scheduled loss in which he had a valiant. I was trained to something reason of three million homes for those burnings which could prove it was a lot of care. He couldn't prove it was for lots of accommodation and equipment, but she couldn't prove he needed because, you know that expert evidence inspected anything. Of course. Is that because Mr Right didn't have next words the expert decided, having done control looks for a while that he was involved in the case, he was heading its trial with almost no evidence at all off some written evidence from an expert. You have sensitive case. But if Mr Wright's Mr Wright's case in the high Court for clinical negligence have been struck out holy on parties, concerts, fundamental or dishonesty, then don't even lost talk well in terms of the duties of carols. The court looked back to 19 sixties cases concerning people like survivors on drums office, where a severe a person came into being, um had offered advice and help to a home, but actually didn't meet specific qualifications. In that case, it was determined that in fact, the individual concern old the same duties as a be happy. It's not the court considered innocents. And was that Troy Lucas old duties that they started? The court decided that troll Lucas old mystery white the same duties as a sister because that's what they claims to be. They came to be professional legal claim to be as good or better than any system on the actives in terms of conduct investigations. If they were, just listen to the fact that we get getting paid substantial sums of money was not determined of issue, but it was a fact. Ultimately, when judged by VAT yardstick that they felt in terms of the loss of the court, I was satisfied that Troy Lucas worthy predominance, um, engine behind the exaggerated steps of loss. But they recognize that fact. Mr. Life himself had to take some responsibility for that, and as a consequence of that. When it came to damages, they reduced the amount of damages by approximately 5% to reflect that fact. The key part in decision seems to be as follows. Firstly, that's Troy Lucas, because they held themselves up to have the skills and expertise off legal service professionals would be held to that yardstick on. They would be houses that yardstick, respectively, with the charge whether it didn't jumped. In so doing, they were also obliged offer advice in the same way that legal freshman services professional would have done but but did not offer that advice because they couldn't. Accordingly, they advanced a false trip, a false claim on the basis off negative advice on. Therefore, consequentially. Mr Wright had a claim based on their conduct. That's worth remembering without, of course, the Provisional Legal Services is regulated service, the famous version of medical services. Professional financial advice. The difficulty is off. The Troy Lucas were not committed to run litigation. They weren't permitted to get meeting us because they weren't regulated short Onda and they weren't holding to any body such as a loss rt of the Ministry of Justice. But nonetheless, the court decided that, notwithstanding those limitations, they should still be held liable to that standard. The question is whether the case beyond Mackenzie Friends has any additional indications. Well, I think it probably does, because they're dishonest. Advanced me. Advancing off the underlying plane did not appear to be an obstacle in pursuing a professional negligence action against illegal service, professional or, in this instance, a Mackenzie friend. Now Mr Wright's initial plane predated the sin field against local claim twenties 18. And although subsequent decision question whether in fact, had his underlying claim being decided along the lines of fundamental dishonesty, which is replicated in this infield Miller case, whether in fact the odd couple to be different depression, negative states questions we don't know. But it wasn't the barrier in this instance. What the judge decides to do is that said is she decided to reduce the damages by percentage to reflect his own culpability for secondly, in terms of the implications for actual professionals. So if the outcome of the case is that a party holding cells are just having skills of of a professional person will be held to that standard, whether in fact they are that professional individual not on that duty doesn't hand upon any payment or reward, then that conduct on that obligation extends not only to things that they do but the things that they have not done. But all took up in this instance. For example, giving advice. No, I'm wondering whether, given the decision in Rice and Tolliver's, whether, for example, of a solicitor convincing system gives advice about whether, in fact, a particular property is a good investment or not. Are they holding themselves? Are just having skills over investment adviser on If they are, do they hold themselves to that, um, skill set on all they liable if they don't therefore meet all the obligations? International thinking, for example, of medical legal experts who sometimes stray into the realms of giving advice is to actual treatments. If that treatment goes wrong? To what extent are they potentially for the giving of that advice or for the failure to offer the full gamut? Advice when it comes to the Patrick question is, nobody knows but is likely. I think about the writing try. Lucas decision will be considered much more widely than this specific instance of McKenzie friends in this instance Of course, with Mr Wright's on and toilet. It's one thing getting the judgments. Nothing. Didn't think the case goes to a wider problem on that is the candy friends holder themselves up. But as I was offering advice, not freshly qualified to do, I'm doing so in circumstances where they are charging significant sums of money to people we don't really have. Much options need much choice. The regulation of the county friends cannot be done by a corpse. We can't be done by people bringing claims against it because of many instances in virtually every instance, they aren't regulations on the arts. In short on. Therefore, even if one doesn't care, judgment against him to obtain satisfaction of judgment is at best questionable. The Broder and larger question, just probably one government is it's going to impose totally off tens of friends on summer people in terms of device, they give what they can do, what they can't do. More importantly, how are they going to thank you very much for listening to this short? Webinar, I hope you find interesting. Please join us next time when we do our next Thank you
15:32
