Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co
The advocate's immunity from negligence claims extended only to work intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court.
Facts
Mr Saif Ali was injured in a road accident while a passenger in a van. His solicitors instructed a barrister, who advised suing only the driver of the other car, and not the owner of the van in which he was travelling. By the time the mistake was discovered, the claim against the van owner was time barred. Mr Saif Ali sued his solicitors, who in turn joined the barrister to the proceedings, alleging that his negligent advice had caused the loss.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the barrister was not immune from the claim. The immunity recognised in Rondel v Worsley was limited to work done in court and pre trial work so intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court that it could fairly be said to be a preliminary decision affecting the way that the case is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing. Advice about who to sue was not covered by that test. The decision narrowed the immunity, which was later abolished altogether.
Related cases on judiciary, legal profession and access to justice
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
- 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
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.
