Niki Christodoulides v CP Christou LLP & Anor

A professional-negligence claim arising from unsuccessful litigation may ordinarily proceed, but it must disclose a realistic prospect of proving breach, causation and loss. It may also be abusive where success would require an impermissible collateral challenge to findings made in earlier proceedings, particularly where those findings concern another person’s honesty, the validity of a will or registered land ownership.

Particulars of claim must state concisely what was done or omitted, what would have happened instead, and the resulting loss. A claim based on a later trial must identify a realistic causal link to the earlier lawyers’ conduct. A clear, objectively construed full-and-final settlement may bar a later negligence claim.

The claimant sued her former solicitors and barrister for professional negligence arising from litigation concerning her late mother’s will, property transfers, estate assets and related proceedings. She alleged that negligent preparation and conduct of the principal trial caused her to lose that litigation, affected a later asset claim, and led to unfavourable settlements.

The defendants applied for strike-out and summary judgment under CPR rules 3.4 and 24.2. The barrister also relied on a September 2017 full-and-final settlement of his fees. The central issues were whether the claim disclosed reasonable grounds, had a realistic prospect of success, constituted an abuse of process, was adequately pleaded, and was barred by settlement.

1. Summary judgment and strike-out. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no realistic prospect of success. The pleaded allegations did not provide a coherent causal route from the alleged professional failings to the adverse outcomes.
2. The underlying will and transfer litigation had been lost because the claimant was found dishonest and manipulative after contested trials. The later asset claim was also determined on the trial judge’s independent assessment of her evidence. The claimant’s attempt to attribute those outcomes to earlier lawyers’ conduct was untenable. The defendants had not acted in the later asset claim, and the pleaded case did not show that anything done in the earlier litigation affected its result.
3. The court applied the approach in Allsop v Banner Jones: negligence claims concerning failed litigation are not automatically abusive, but the court must focus intensely on the facts. This claim required the claimant effectively to relitigate findings about her own honesty and her sister’s conduct. That would unfairly impugn the sister’s reputation in proceedings to which she was not a party, undermine the finality of probate and registered land decisions, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
4. The Particulars of Claim also failed to comply with CPR r 16.4(1)(a). They did not concisely identify the material facts, the required alternative conduct, the causal mechanism or the loss. The numerous annexes were largely incomprehensible and did not cure the defects. Leave to amend was refused because the claimant had already been given ample opportunity to do so.
5. The barrister established that the September 2017 agreement was objectively a full-and-final settlement extending to the claimant’s existing complaints and potential negligence claim. Giving up a doubtful claim constituted good consideration for the fee reduction. Summary judgment was therefore granted under CPR r 24.2(a)(i), and the statement of case was alternatively struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and (b).

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment for these proceedings.