Thorpe v Fellowes Solicitors LLP

A solicitor instructed by an elderly client is not required routinely to obtain medical evidence of capacity. Further inquiries are required only where circumstances would raise doubt in the mind of a reasonably competent practitioner. Dementia alone does not establish incapacity or make it apparent. The claim failed because the solicitor reasonably verified the client’s instructions, no breach or causative loss was proved, and the alleged undervalue and unauthorised transfer of proceeds were unsupported.

Mrs Leonie Leanthie Hill, acting through her litigation friend Rudyard Kipling Thorpe, brought a professional negligence claim against Fellowes Solicitors LLP. She alleged that the firm acted without proper instructions while she had dementia, sold her home at an undervalue, and remitted the proceeds to her daughter without authority.

The court also considered late evidence from treating doctors and the use of a single joint expert. The central issues were whether a reasonably competent conveyancing solicitor should have investigated Mrs Hill’s capacity or the transaction further, and whether any breach caused recoverable loss.

1. Claim dismissed. None of the pleaded breaches of duty was established, and no loss was proved.
2. Dementia is not an all-or-nothing condition. It did not establish that Mrs Hill lacked capacity, could not exercise free will, or that her condition would have been apparent to a reasonably competent solicitor.
3. A solicitor generally needs to investigate capacity only where circumstances raise doubt in the mind of a reasonably competent practitioner. There is no general duty to obtain medical evidence whenever instructed by an elderly client. The standard is that of a reasonably competent practitioner, not a particularly meticulous practitioner.
4. Ms Butler reasonably met Mrs Hill, checked that she understood and wanted the sale, obtained written confirmation of important instructions, and verified the destination of the proceeds. No material change required renewed inquiries.
5. There was no general duty to obtain an independent valuation. A later resale at a higher price did not establish an undervalue without reliable valuation evidence. The single joint expert’s report ordinarily constituted the evidence; further expert evidence or cross-examination required proper justification and control under Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Office of the Public Guardian.