Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v. Simons and Barratt v. Ansell and Others v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill [2000] UKHL 38 (20 July 2000)

Three clients sued their solicitors for negligence in civil litigation matters. The House of Lords was asked whether advocates' immunity from negligence claims should continue. The House unanimously abolished the immunity for civil proceedings, fundamentally changing the law to allow clients to sue negligent advocates.

Facts

Three separate appeals were heard together. In all three cases, clients brought negligence claims against their solicitors arising from civil litigation. Mr Simons alleged his solicitors negligently allowed him to become involved in lengthy litigation instead of advising settlement. Mr Barratt claimed his solicitors negligently advised him to settle his divorced wife’s ancillary relief claim on disadvantageous terms. Mrs Harris similarly complained about negligent advice leading to an unfavourable settlement of her maintenance claim. The solicitors in each case claimed immunity from suit under the principle established in Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191.

Issues

Principal Issues

1. Whether the immunity of advocates from negligence claims, as established in Rondel v Worsley and explained in Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co [1980] AC 198, should be maintained in England.

2. What should be the proper scope of the principle barring collateral attacks on court decisions as established in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529.

Judgment

Abolition of Immunity in Civil Cases

The House unanimously held that the immunity of advocates from negligence claims could no longer be justified in civil proceedings. Lord Steyn, delivering a leading speech, examined the traditional justifications for the immunity:

On the duty to the court argument, Lord Steyn observed that while the advocate’s overriding duty to the court remained important, the fear that liability in negligence would undermine this duty was not supported by evidence. He noted that Canada had operated without such immunity successfully, and the introduction of wasted costs orders against barristers in England had not caused the problems predicted.

On the cab rank rule, Lord Steyn found it could not justify depriving all clients of a remedy for negligence. On the witness immunity analogy, he considered this reasoning had little weight. On the collateral challenge argument, Lord Steyn held that the principle in Hunter and existing rules on res judicata and abuse of process were adequate to address concerns about relitigating decided matters.

Lord Hoffmann emphasised the fundamental principle that English law provides a remedy for professional negligence, and any exception requires sound justification. He examined each traditional justification and found them wanting in modern conditions, noting particularly the experience of the wasted costs jurisdiction and overseas jurisdictions operating without immunity.

Division on Criminal Cases

The House was divided on whether immunity should be retained in criminal proceedings. Lords Steyn, Browne-Wilkinson, Hoffmann and Millett favoured complete abolition. Lords Hope, Hutton and Hobhouse would have retained immunity for criminal advocacy, considering the public interest in the efficient administration of criminal justice warranted different treatment.

The Hunter Principle

The House confirmed that the principle against collateral challenge of criminal convictions should be maintained. A person whose conviction stands should ordinarily not be permitted to sue their advocate for negligence, as this would be an abuse of process. However, once a conviction is set aside, the way is clear for a negligence action.

Implications

This decision fundamentally changed the law by abolishing the centuries-old immunity of advocates from negligence claims in civil proceedings. Barristers and solicitor advocates can now be sued by their clients for negligent conduct of civil litigation, subject to the ordinary standards applicable to professional negligence claims. The decision recognised that public confidence in the legal system is not enhanced by an immunity that singles out lawyers for special protection. The ruling applies prospectively and does not render Rondel v Worsley wrongly decided, but declares the law for current and future conditions.

Verdict: Appeals dismissed. The House of Lords held unanimously that the solicitors were not entitled to immunity in these cases. The immunity of advocates from negligence claims was abolished for civil proceedings. The House was divided on whether immunity should be retained for criminal proceedings.

Source: Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v. Simons and Barratt v. Ansell and Others v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill [2000] UKHL 38 (20 July 2000)