A damages claim brought against a law firm acting in a negligence case against other lawyers over the purchase of a house dubbed ‘the French castle’ has been struck out by a High Court judge.

In Michael Partridge & Anor v Healys LLP, Master Sullivan found that the claim ‘as currently pleaded’ had no real prospects of success and was an abuse of process as it repeated issues being dealt with in the Senior Courts Costs Office.

The damages claim was brought by Michael Partridge and Suzette Partridge against Healys LLP for its conduct of a professional negligence claim against the pair’s previous lawyers. Those lawyers had represented the claimants in a claim arising out of the purchase of a multi-million-pound Spanish property known as ‘the French Castle’.

Healys applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgment against the claimants. The latter had claimed they overpaid for the residential property, having paid €8m when it was worth between €4m and €4.5m.

The judge, in her 15-page judgment, said: ‘I…remind myself that the standard of care and skill for a legal professional is that of a reasonably competent practitioner, and if they hold themselves out as a specialist, of a reasonably competent specialist.

‘The claimant has to prove that any negligence has caused them to lose something of value which is a claim which has real and substantial rather than negligible prospects of success. That can include real and substantial prospects of settlement.’

Considering the valuation claim, she said it was ‘fanciful to suggest [it] would have made any more than a negligible difference to the prospect of a greater settlement than that achieved’. Healys had advised the couple to accept the mediation sum of £575,000.

She added: ‘There is in my judgment no real prospect that the claimants will succeed in arguing that there was a loss of a chance of a more significant settlement than that achieved as a result of the consequential loss claim not being advanced because of anything the defendant did or did not do. The contemporaneous documents indicate that the claimants failed to provide the requested evidence required in order to pursue the claim.’

Addressing the termination of the conditional fee agreement, the judge said: ‘This allegation is being determined in the SCCO. Given the stage of proceedings in the SCCO it seems to me that it would be an abuse to allow this part of the claim to proceed in the King's Bench Division.

‘The same issue cannot be litigated in two different parts of the High Court at the same time for the usual reasons of risk of inconsistent judgments, and effect on the administration of justice in respect of allocation of court resources.

‘In addition, in circumstances where a party has a debarral order against them in one forum, it would be an abuse to then allow them to make the same claim in another.

‘The pleading that the claimants were not able to get litigation funding as a result of the termination of the retainer is also inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents. I also accept the defendant’s submission that the claim for the professional fees incurred during the course of the defendant’s retainer, insofar as it is not being dealt with in the SCCO proceedings, has no real prospect of success given that it cannot be said that the fees should not have been charged or were wholly wasted.’

Striking out the claim, the judge said ‘it was not clear in what way [the advice given by the firm during mediation] could be said to be deficient’.

She added: ‘In summary, I accept that as currently pleaded, the claim has no real prospect of success and is an abuse of process insofar as it duplicates the issues in the SCCO.’