Niki Christodoulides v CP Christou LLP & Anor

The claimant sued her former solicitors (CP Christou LLP) and counsel (Mr Holbech) in professional negligence for alleged failings in litigation about her late mother’s estate, contending that those failings caused loss in several related proceedings. The defendants applied to strike out and for summary judgment.

The court applied the familiar tests for strike out (CPR r 3.4) and summary judgment (CPR r 24.2) and examined whether the particulars disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action, whether there was a real prospect of success, and whether the claim amounted to an abuse of process by mounting a collateral attack on concluded trials.

• The judge treated as central the contemporaneous trial judgments (the Recorder’s 2017 judgment and HHJ Johns’ 2021 judgment) which had found the claimant to be dishonest and had resolved the factual conflicts against her.
• On the facts pleaded the court concluded the claimant had no real prospect of showing causation or loss in respect of the later Asset Claim (which the defendants had not acted in) because the later judge made an independent assessment and rejected the claimant’s evidence.
• The pleaded allegations of defective preparation and of omitted documents/witnesses did not, on the material before the court, amount to a realistic basis for overturning the earlier findings of dishonesty; many particulars were incoherent or contradicted by contemporaneous emails, and the pleadings failed adequately to particularise causation.
• The claim was also an abuse of process because permitting collateral relitigation of the critical issues (including allegations that would impugn the non‑party sister’s honesty and affect public records such as probate and registered title) would be manifestly unfair and risk bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Accordingly the claim was struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendants.

Background and parties: The claimant, Niki Christodoulides, brought a professional negligence claim against her former solicitors, CP Christou LLP (First Defendant), and counsel, Mr Charles Holbech (Second Defendant), arising from litigation between the claimant and her sister Andre about their late mother Agni’s estate. The claimant alleged that negligent conduct in the preparation and conduct of a 2016 trial (the Underlying Claim) caused her to lose that trial and subsequent proceedings (including an Asset Claim decided in 2021) and resulted in various settlement losses.

Relief sought: Damages in excess of £8 million for alleged professional negligence; alternatively relief for loss of chance and losses arising from alleged poor settlement outcomes.

Procedural posture: Defendants applied to strike out the particulars of claim and/or obtain summary judgment under CPR r 3.4(2) and r 24.2. The Second Defendant also relied on an asserted "full and final" settlement reached in September 2017 as a bar to the claim against him.

Issues the court addressed:

• Whether the particulars of claim disclosed reasonable grounds/a real prospect of success (CPR r 3.4 / r 24.2).
• Whether the claim was an abuse of process as an impermissible collateral attack on final decisions in prior litigation.
• Whether the particulars were so inadequately pleaded that they should be struck out and whether amendment should be permitted.
• Whether a full and final settlement in 2017 barred the claim against the Second Defendant.

Court’s reasoning (concise):

• The court gave weight to the findings made at trial and on refusal of permission to appeal that the claimant had been repeatedly dishonest. Those findings were multi‑factorial and in significant part rested on the trial judges’ own assessments of credibility.
• The pleaded failings (missing documents, redactions, witness preparation, trial timetable and similar complaints) were either contradicted by contemporaneous material, implausible given the claimant’s active role in case preparation, or inadequately pleaded as to causation (i.e. lacking a clear explanation how each pleaded omission would have altered the outcome in circumstances where the judge had rejected the claimant’s credibility).
• The claim sought effectively to re‑litigate the central contested facts (including allegations which would impugn the sister’s reputation and affect public records such as probate and land registration). Allowing that collateral relitigation would be manifestly unfair and risk bringing the administration of justice into disrepute; the claim was therefore abusive.
• The Second Defendant demonstrated that the parties had objectively agreed a "full and final" settlement of fee disputes in September 2017 which, on ordinary principles of interpretation and consideration, precluded a later professional negligence action against him.
• The particulars were lengthy, poorly organized and did not satisfy the requirement for a concise statement of facts; the claimant had opportunities to amend but did not do so satisfactorily, and the court would have refused further amendment.

Result: summary judgment for the defendants and strike out of the claimant’s particulars of claim.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants and struck out the claimant’s statement of case. The judge held that the particulars disclosed no reasonable grounds and that the claimant had no real prospect of success: (1) her pleaded case could not overcome the multi‑factorial findings of dishonesty made by earlier trial judges; (2) the claim constituted an abusive collateral attack on finalized judgments (and could impugn third‑party reputation and public records); (3) the pleadings were inadequately particularised and would not be rescued by amendment; and (4) in relation to the Second Defendant there was an objective full and final settlement in September 2017 which barred the claim against him.