Else Solicitors recently acted for a client who took to the Court of Appeal a claim that the Judge at first instance was wrong to strike out his claim on a summary judgment basis.
The claim related to last minute changes made by the client’s former solicitors to a Sale Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the client was selling his interest in a business but seeking to retain ownership of (and subsequently develop further) certain intellectual property rights. Else’s client considers that the changes made to the Sale Purchase Agreement allowed the Purchaser scope to argue that the intellectual property rights had not been transferred and, as a consequence, the client was unable to exploit and market the rights in question and suffered considerable losses.
The Court of Appeal filed that the Judge was wrong to decide at a summary judgment hearing that, as a matter of law, the actions of the solicitors in question did not cause the substantial losses claimed. Further, the Court of Appeal held that the client was entitled to have all of the factual evidence, as well as the law, considered at a full trial.
Dispute Resolution solicitor, Amiee Thomas who assisted on this case said:
“This was a fantastic result for our client. The interpretation and analysis of when a summary judgment is appropriate is not only of keen interest to our clients but ultimately for the legal profession in general. This was a very exciting decision which has allowed our client to have the case heard in the High Court!”
Andrew Hickman, Partner at Else Solicitors, commented:
“It was a very brave decision by the client to incur the substantial costs of pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeal in London. The client was convinced that he should not have to suffer the substantial losses he did when, in his view, they arose out of actions he did not take or instruct. The client now has the right to have his case fully and properly considered at a full trial”.