Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

BANKRUPTCY/ANCILLARY RELIEF/NEGLIGENCE: Burke v Chapman and Chubb [2008] EWHC 341 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:10 PM
Slug : burke-v-chapman-and-chubb-2008-ewhc-341-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 29, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87183

(Queens Bench Division; Plender J; 29 February 2008)

A bankruptcy order made against the husband shortly before the ancillary relief hearing prevented the making of a property adjustment order in the wifes favour. The husband died shortly afterwards. The wife claimed damages from her ancillary relief solicitors, on the basis that they had negligently failed to protect her from the effect of the husbands bankruptcy.

A competent solicitor should have foreseen a risk that the insolvency of the husband might adversely affect the wifes claim to ancillary relief and the solicitors in this case ought to have warned the wife of that risk and advised her. However, advice as to the risk would not have prevented the loss, unless there had been some specific action the wife could have taken. The wife was very far from showing that if she had been advised as to the consequence on her claim of the husbands bankruptcy she would have achieved a settlement of that claim; on the evidence, the prospects of a negotiated settlement were no more than fanciful. Only an earlier hearing of the case in the county court, culminating in an immediate or early property adjustment order would have secured the wifes interests before the intervention of the bankruptcy petition; there had been no appreciable chance of the solicitors achieving that by any efforts that they could reasonably have been expected to undertake.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from