![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Working on the basis that no man may profit from his
own wrong, here is an interesting one to think about.
A is facing proceedings from B, so sees some solicitors
who advise him wrongly that he has a good defence.
The wrong advice is based on two things,
1. Failure to realise which act covers the proceedings.
2. An error in the pleading of B.
3. A failure to spot that B has got it wrong despite
papers in the hands of A's advisers showing that there case is unanswerable
if correctly pleaded.
A then takes this advice as good and proceeds until B
realises his mistake and fixes his pleadings.
This is allowed on the basis that most but not all of
A's costs are paid to date.
So, to save a bit of time let us assume that as a matter
of fact the failure to read the file and see the true position is an act
of negligence. That therefore leaves A out of pocket.
The interesting question is should A's legal advisors
get the benefit of the costs order, their being instructed in the first
place being as a result of their own negligence?
I know what I think, and that is that it would be perverse
that a party who has not done work so tainted with negligence can't expect
to be paid. What do others think?
Kind regards
Benedict White <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |