Williams v Thompson Leatherdale (a firm)& Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the Defendant prior to the House of Lords decision in White v White, which altered the legal approach to financial provision on divorce. The Plaintiff was advised by a law firm ("Company A") and a junior counsel ("Attorney Francis") during negotiations leading to the agreement. The agreement was formalised as a consent order by a District Judge in the County Court. The Plaintiff later claimed negligence against Attorney Francis for failing to advise her of the potential implications of the White decision, which was pending at the time of settlement, and against Company A for failing to act appropriately after the White decision was handed down.

The Plaintiff alleged that, had she been properly advised, she would have postponed settlement and obtained a more favourable financial provision. The case involved detailed factual findings about the parties' financial circumstances, the Plaintiff's health and personal situation, and the conduct of the legal representatives and advisors. The Court examined whether Attorney Francis owed a duty to advise on the White decision and whether Company A was negligent in failing to withdraw or reconsider the consent order following the decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Attorney Francis was negligent in failing to advise the Plaintiff of the possible implications of the pending House of Lords decision in White v White, including the likelihood of a favourable change in the law.
2. If negligence is established, whether the Plaintiff would have postponed settlement negotiations until after the White decision.
3. If so, the extent to which the Plaintiff's financial recovery would have exceeded the amount received under the settlement agreement.
4. Whether Company A was negligent in failing to withdraw the application for a consent order after the White decision, or in failing to advise the Plaintiff of her rights to reopen negotiations or pursue a claim before the Court.
5. Whether Company A was negligent in not seeking advice from Attorney Francis regarding the implications of the White decision post-judgment.
6. If negligence by Company A is established, whether the Plaintiff would have repudiated the settlement and obtained a greater financial award.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Attorney Francis was negligent in not informing her about the potential impact of the White decision, thereby preventing her from making an informed choice to delay settlement.
• Company A failed to act after the White decision by not withdrawing the consent order application or advising her that the settlement was not binding and that negotiations could be reopened.
• Had she been properly advised, she would have obtained a significantly better financial outcome either by fresh settlement or court proceedings.

Defendants' Arguments

• Attorney Francis was not negligent as the possibility of the White decision impacting the case was a real but not likely outcome, and he exercised reasonable professional judgment given the Plaintiff's circumstances and desire for a clean break.
• Company A was entitled to rely on Attorney Francis’s advice and was not obliged to monitor appellate decisions or withdraw the consent order without such advice.
• Even if negligence were found, the Plaintiff would not have postponed settlement or repudiated the agreement given her strong desire for a clean break, personal circumstances, and the risks and costs of litigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified the relevant standard of care as that expected of a competent barrister with expertise in ancillary relief in 2000, emphasizing that errors of judgment are not negligent unless no reasonable professional could have made them.

The Court determined that Attorney Francis was not aware of the pending White appeal at the time of his initial advice in March 2000 and that his duty to advise on White’s implications only arose in connection with the three room meeting on 9 August 2000.

It was found that by early August 2000 the prospect of White leading to a more generous approach to financial provision was foreseeable, supported by case law and professional commentary. Attorney Francis had a duty to inform the Plaintiff of this real possibility so she could decide whether to suspend negotiations. His failure to do so was negligent.

However, the Court concluded that despite this negligence, the Plaintiff would not have postponed settlement. The Plaintiff’s strong desire for a clean break, personal circumstances, and the risks and costs associated with litigation meant she would have accepted the settlement regardless.

Regarding Company A, the Court found no duty arose to withdraw the consent order application or advise the Plaintiff post-White unless the solicitors were aware of the decision before the order was made. Evidence did not establish that Company A’s solicitors knew of the White decision before the consent order was made. They were entitled to rely on Attorney Francis’s advice.

Even if Company A had sought advice from Attorney Francis post-White, his evidence indicated he would have recommended maintaining the settlement. The Plaintiff would have remained bound by the agreement.

The Plaintiff was found to be an unreliable witness in many respects, and her assertions about what she would have done had she received different advice were not accepted unless corroborated by documents or other evidence.

Accordingly, both claims for negligence against Attorney Francis and Company A failed on the basis that no recoverable loss was proven.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the claims against Attorney Francis and Company A are dismissed.

The Plaintiff failed to prove that she suffered any loss as a result of Attorney Francis’s negligence in failing to advise on the White decision, since she would have proceeded with the settlement regardless. The Plaintiff also failed to prove that Company A was negligent or that she would have repudiated the settlement had Company A acted differently post-White.

The direct effect is that the settlement agreement remains binding and the Plaintiff’s claims for additional financial provision fail. No new legal precedent was established by this decision beyond the application of existing principles concerning professional negligence and family law settlements.