Report comment

It doesn't look as if BLM (and possibly its clients) will come out of this smelling of roses whatever the Supreme Court finds. Wouldn't it have been more sensible for BLM to have told the Claimant that the Claim Form had not been vailidly served, even if they didn't go on to tell him how to do so validly? It looks as if they realised that an error had been made and took advantage of this, presumably waiting until the time for service had expired before informing the Claimant of his error. But in the defence of BLM, like any solicitor they had an obligation to report the facts to their clients, advise the clients thereupon, take their clients' instructions and act upon those instructions. One has to presume that in these circumstances, the client who received the report and advice and gave the instructions was the insurer rather than the insured. But BLM might have qualified their report to the client by saying that whilst advantage could be taken of the Claimant's error, it might not be prudent to do so and the court could take a dim view of this. But I wonder what would have been that client's perception of such a report? Maybe that it showed weakness and a lack of robustness on the part of a panel solicitor? And in any event, had BLM done so, I wonder what the insurer's instruction would have been? I think that we can guess!