Description
Leading and junior Counsel successfully challenged a first instance finding that that they should have advised as to the potential expiry of a limitation period because although the lower court had identified the correct legal test in its application the judge had instead applied his own view as to what the solicitor should have done rather than determining what any reasonably competent solicitor would have done. On analysis a reasonably competent solicitor would not have considered it necessary to look beyond an extensive 10 page note for identifying his complaints against his former solicitors for further earlier causes of actions. The Court of Appeal was able to consider the matter without the oral evidence because most of the first instance findings were based on documents. Accordingly there was no real prospect of success in the claim and there could be no criticism of the barristers instructed for not appreciating that there was a possible underlying complaint thereafter.
