The High Court has dismissed negligence allegations which had been hanging over a barrister and legal advice centre for more than five years.

His Honour Judge Tindal accepted claimant and litigant in person Anna Christie would be ‘bitterly disappointed’ by his decision after such a long legal fight over the advice to sell her property in 2012 following a possession claim by the London Borough of Southwark.

The judge said: ‘I understand her anger that it was taken from her by Southwark when she actually had a good defence. It was no-one’s fault that was not deployed: she was very stressed and so did not tell the defendants, who were blameless.’

Christie has not worked since 2007 after a serious assault at work and admitted she had spent more than 10 hours a day working on this dispute for the last decade. Documentation in the case now consists of two large lever arch files of more than 1,000 pages.

In Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor, the judge said her long immersion in the case was also relevant to her ‘perspective’ on the dispute and he noted that she now blamed the lawyers rather than the local authority that effectively forced her out of her home. The judge had no doubts Christie was an honest witness but said her entrenched position ‘has plainly affected her recollection of events’ and affected the reliability of her evidence.

Christie had bought her two-bedroom flat near Waterloo in London as a right-to-buy, but in 2009 the London Borough of Southwark issued proceedings against her over an outstanding service charge debt. She was subject to a possession hearing but there was no chance of her paying off the whole of the judgment debt – nor indeed paying further charges to cover the cost of works to the building.

She asked the Mary Ward Legal Centre in 2012 to advise on the dispute and solicitors from the centre instructed Andrew Dymond – a barrister, the judge noted, whose ‘reputation and expertise was (and remains) unquestionable’. Dymond advised Christie to sell the property at least to retain the equity less the debt. She was unhappy but accepted his advice. 

After the sale and having engaged in litigation with Southwark, Christie brought negligence claims against the law centre and Dymond. She alleged that the barrister was negligent in not advising that she had a defence that Southwark’s notice of forfeiture was invalid.

The judge said the question was whether Dymond’s duty extended to advising or pleading points he did not consider were properly arguable. The judge rejected a pleading that Dymond was negligent by ruling out agreeing a loan with the council or making a relief application. These were bound to fail and it was proper of the barrister not to advise pursuing either course of action.

Further, Dymond was not negligent in failing to investigate and discover rent invoices which might have aided Christie’s case, the judge adding that a barrister ‘cannot be expected to divine every claim a client might have’.

The judge exonerated Dymond from any criticism and said the flat may well have been forfeited in any case even if Christie had not been advised to sell.

‘[Dymond] was not given crucial information and gave exemplary advice on the information he had,’ added the judge. ‘I can entirely understand why C may have felt bitter for a long time towards Southwark. But I struggle to understand why she ever came to blame Mr Dymond for trying to help her as he did.

The judge further rejected negligence claims against the Mary Ward Legal Centre, saying that its solicitors had very little experience in the technicalities of leases and relief against forfeiture. ‘It was wise of [the solicitors] to instruct a true specialist in that field - Mr Dymond - and in my judgement, they were entitled to rely on his advice.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.