Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor

On an interlocutory application raising limitation, the court must decide whether the claim has a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of defeating the limitation defence at trial. It should exercise caution before treating pleaded allegations about damage and causation as conclusively established or rejected, because liability may affect the characterisation and timing of the damage.

Claims of professional negligence involving several alleged breaches and heads of loss should not automatically be treated holistically. Whether costs, a possession order or diminution in the value of a right constitute real, attributable and recoverable damage is ordinarily fact-sensitive. Where those issues remain genuinely arguable, strike-out or summary dismissal is inappropriate.

Anna Christie brought a professional-negligence claim against Mary Ward Legal Centre and Andrew Dymond arising from advice given in connection with forfeiture proceedings concerning her leasehold home. The claim form was issued on 15 July 2019. Mr Dymond applied for strike-out or summary dismissal on the ground that the tort claim was statute-barred under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Master McCloud refused the application on 30 June 2022, holding that there was a reasonable prospect that the relevant damage occurred when the flat was sold in July 2013, rather than earlier. The appeal concerned whether earlier costs liabilities, the possession order, conveyancing costs or diminution in the value of the right to seek relief from forfeiture necessarily caused the limitation period to expire before proceedings were issued.

1. Appeal dismissed. The limitation issue was fit for trial and was not suitable for strike-out or summary dismissal under CPR 3.4(2)(a) or 24.2(a)(i).
2. On an application of this kind, the question is whether the claimant has a real, not fanciful, prospect of defeating the limitation defence at trial. The court must exercise caution before deciding the limitation issue on an assumed version of the pleaded case, because the ultimate findings on breach and causation may affect both the characterisation and timing of the damage.
3. The applicable principles were sufficiently summarised in Hatton v Chafes [2003] PNLR 24. A negligence cause of action requires real and relevant damage, and a claimant cannot avoid limitation by relying only on later damage if earlier attributable damage has already been suffered. Their application is intensely fact-sensitive, as recognised in Berney v Saul [2013] EWCA Civ 640 and Maharaj v Johnson [2015] UKPC 28.
4. The allegations concerning advice on a substantive defence and advice concerning relief from forfeiture were distinct. It was wrong to assume that success on both allegations, or that every later cost and event, necessarily followed from the advice. Ms Christie’s apparent rejection of the substantive advice might affect causation.
5. The Council’s claimed costs of £9,000 were not necessarily minimal or trivial. There were triable issues about causation and whether the order of 28 June 2013 replaced earlier costs orders. The £1,169 conveyancing costs raised issues as to when liability arose, attribution and recoverability.
6. The possession order was not self-evidently damage or proof that the flat’s value was diminished. It preserved an unqualified right to apply for relief, and a successful application could restore the lease from the date of forfeiture: Ivory Gate Ltd v Spetale (1999) 77 P & C R 141. There were also triable issues about whether the order, rather than the need to obtain relief, caused the sale.
7. The court did not need to resolve alleged tensions between Hopkins v MacKenzie [1994] PIQR 43, Khan v Falvey [2002] EWCA Civ 400 and Berney, or apply the categories discussed in Pegasus Management Holdings v Ernst & Young [2008] EWHC 2720 (Ch). The decision determined only that the limitation issue should proceed to trial and did not bind the parties or trial court on the eventual reasoning.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal against Master McCloud’s decision of 30 June 2022 dismissed. The limitation defence was held suitable for determination at trial.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): a separate appeal by Ms Christie concerning the claim against Mary Ward Legal Centre was upheld by Turner J on 17 July 2023: [2023] EWHC 1814 (KB).