Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Mr Carlisle appears to have no opinion he is wiling to share. That it a loss to clarity.

Master James dismissed the action because, and among many other matters:-

1. The Claimant had not challenged the billing instrument within the statutory time period as allowed by s.70 Solicitors Act 1974. The billing instrument was delivered some two years before it was re-animated by the S.68 action.

2. The Claimant's written instructions were adduced in evidence to prove settlement of the matter within the terms of the offer and the retainer, and that the acceptance was proper, lawful and correct in every particular.

Indeed, the Claimant (being a normal, ordinary person, on a limited benefit based income and an unsophisticated user of legal services), was entirely satisfied with the modest outcome of what was a modest cause of action.

But in spite of this and many other problems which, ordinarily, would alert a competent legal adviser to caution; the Claimant perused such a fated action all the way to an inevitable loss - and with costs to boot!

It is as much a wonder what advice was given to peruse the action on the facts, as it is a wonder what instructions if any were taken.

So much for upholding statutory rights Mr Carlisle.

Your details

Cancel