Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons
The House of Lords abolished the immunity of advocates from claims in negligence.
Facts
In three conjoined appeals, clients sued their former solicitors for negligence in the way they had handled cases, including advice to settle claims on unfavourable terms. The solicitors argued that they were immune from such claims, because the alleged negligence related to the conduct of litigation, relying on the immunity recognised in Rondel v Worsley and Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co.
Legal principle
A specially constituted House of Lords of seven held that the immunity of advocates from claims in negligence could no longer be justified and should be abolished, in civil cases unanimously and in criminal cases by a majority of four to three. Lord Hoffmann said that the reasons given for the immunity in Rondel v Worsley had lost their force: advocates would not be deterred from their duty to the court by the possibility of being sued, the cab rank rule did not justify immunity, and the risk of relitigating cases could be dealt with by the rules on abuse of process. Advocates, like other professionals, should be liable for their negligence.
Related cases on judiciary, legal profession and access to justice
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38, [2020] AC 629
- Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62, [2008] 1 WLR 2416
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35, [2004] 1 All ER 187
- Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
- Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27, [2003] 1 AC 120
- R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, [2015] 1 WLR 2247
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
