Bacciottini & Anor v Goldsmith
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- His Honour Judge Simon Barker QC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In 2007, solicitors Gotelee & Goldsmith were negligent in a property transaction for Mr. Michele Bacciottini and Ms. Rosemary Cook by failing to disclose a 1974 planning condition. This negligence impacted the property's valuation and led to a legal dispute over the extent of financial losses. The court held that while negligence deprived the claimants of making an informed purchase decision, the subsequent actions to lift the condition mitigated the loss. Ultimately, only nominal damages of £250 were awarded, emphasizing principles such as damages being compensatory and the duty to mitigate loss.
JUDGMENT
His Honour Judge Simon Barker QC
In this case, Gotelee and Goldsmith, a firm of solicitors now trading as Gotelee, (“Gotelee”) admit that their conduct in the course of acting for Mr Michele Bacciottini and Ms Rosemary Cook, in a property transaction in 2007, was negligent. However, they dispute that their negligence has, in the events which have happened, caused any loss beyond the nominal sum of £250.
Alternatively, if that is wrong, they dispute the quantum of Mr Bacciottini and Ms Cook's claim. Although the partner concerned at Gotelee, Mr Jonathan Mathers, made and filed a witness statement, when the time came for the defendant's factual evidence to be presented, he was not called. Accordingly, the factual evidence is that of Mr Bacciottini and Ms Cook, save insofar as undermined by cross-examination or contradicted by reliable documentary evidence.
As between Mr Bacciottini and Ms Cook, Mr Bacciottini had taken the lead in instructing Gotelee and in progressing the property transaction. Accordingly, Ms Cook had nothing of substance to add to Mr Bacciottini's evidence. She did, however, corroborate much of what he said.
Mr Bacciottini is now aged 70 years. He was born in Florence but has been based in England for many years. His command of English is fluent, and his mind is very sharp. To give one example, when challenged in cross-examination about an answer to a question, Mr Bacciottini correctly restated the question he was asked from which it was clear that his answer was in fact on point.
My impression of Mr Bacciottini is that his self-description, that he is a careful and prudent property developer interested in taking and considering advice but trusting in his own judgement when at odds with advice obtained, is accurate. In his written evidence, he makes clear that he evaluates and takes advantage of opportunities.
As a witness I am unable to accept his evidence without qualification, but I do accept his evidence as generally reliable. To the extent that his evidence is inconsistent with contemporaneous documents to which I was referred during the trial, I reject that evidence. So, too, to the extent that it was undermined in cross-examination. This is not a strong or direct criticism of Mr Bacciottini, and I bear in mind that the relevant events happened some years ago.
Unusually for an expert witness, Gotelee's expert planning witness sought to cast a shadow over Mr Bacciottini's character and his conduct as a property develo