Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited v Abdul Shamaj

A claimant’s need to prove that a claim would have been honest when seeking damages for professional negligence is analytically distinct from solicitors’ allegation that they were deliberately misled. The latter allegation is a positive case which the solicitors must prove. A finding that parts of a claim could not honestly have been pursued does not, without more, establish deliberate misleading. The court must determine whether the claim was advanced because of a deliberate attempt to mislead, rather than through misunderstanding or other non-deliberate circumstances. An appellate court should be reluctant to interfere with a trial judge’s factual conclusion on that issue absent an error of principle or compelling evidence.

Mr Shamaj brought professional-negligence proceedings against his former solicitors after a road-traffic claim was struck out when the trial fee was not paid. The solicitors counterclaimed for fees, expenses and disbursements, alleging that Mr Shamaj had failed to comply with his contractual responsibilities by misleading them about the accident and the honesty of his damages claim.

The County Court found that the accident was genuine, that the solicitors had breached their duties by failing to pay or explain the trial fee, and that substantial parts of the damages claim could not honestly have been pursued. It dismissed both the negligence claim and the counterclaim. On appeal, permission was limited to whether the Recorder had wrongly failed to distinguish between a genuine accident and an dishonest claim, and whether the findings about the damages claim necessarily established deliberate misleading.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder had distinguished between the genuineness of the accident and the honesty of the damages claim. He had expressly considered whether the solicitors were misled about the damages claim notwithstanding that the accident was genuine.
2. The conditional fee arrangements required deliberate misleading, not merely the fact of misleading, before the solicitors could recover their fees, expenses or disbursements on that basis. The allegation was therefore tantamount to fraud and had to be proved by the solicitors.
3. Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 did not reverse that burden. Its requirement that a claimant prove that the underlying claim would have been honest arose in the context of establishing loss of a chance in a professional-negligence claim. It did not determine the burden applicable to a solicitors’ counterclaim alleging deliberate misleading.
4. The finding that substantial parts of Mr Shamaj’s claim could not honestly have been pursued was not conclusive. The critical question was whether the claim had been pursued because Mr Shamaj deliberately misled the solicitors. It remained possible that misunderstanding or miscommunication had contributed to the presentation of the claim.
5. The Recorder’s conclusion that the solicitors had not been deliberately misled was a finding of fact. There was no error of principle and the evidence was not sufficiently compelling to justify appellate intervention.
6. An alternative contractual claim for expenses and disbursements based on an entitlement to terminate the retainer was not within the permitted ground of appeal. The court declined to determine it.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): On 31 October 2025, the appeal from the County Court at Manchester was dismissed.
• County Court at Manchester: Recorder M Armstrong dismissed Mr Shamaj’s professional-negligence claim and the solicitors’ counterclaim on 19 June 2024.