Darby & Darby (A Firm) v Joyce
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
- LORD JUSTICE RIMER
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal revolved around the professional negligence of Darby & Darby, a firm of solicitors, who were found to have failed in their duty of care. Helen Joyce, the claimant, bought a property subject to restrictive covenants without being properly advised by Darby. The negligence led to subsequent legal disputes and financial losses. The appeal reviewed the causation and extent of damages, ultimately reducing the liabilities attributed to Darby, particularly the enforcement of stopping work in 2008. Judges had differing views on the extent of damages related to injunction costs.
Judgment
Lord Justice Rimer :
This appeal, by Darby & Darby (‘Darby’), a firm of solicitors, defendants to the claim, is against an order made on 27 March 2013 by Mr Recorder Mitchell in Exeter County Court by which the recorder, so far as material, gave judgment in favour of Helen Joyce, the claimant/respondent, against Darby for: (i) damages for professional negligence for £186,007.94; (ii) an account of the cost of work carried out to the property the subject matter of the claim, for which account Darby was to be answerable; (iii) an assessment of interest, to be dealt with at the conclusion of the account; and (iv) costs.
Jackson LJ gave permission to appeal. Darby challenges the recorder’s order on the grounds that he misdirected himself on causation and quantum. Darby was represented before us by Mr Livesey QC (who did not appear below) and Mr Munro, who did; and Ms Joyce by Mr Guy Adams, as below.
The case is heavily fact-based. I shall first summarise the facts as found by the recorder, supplemented by fuller references to the documents and to the written and oral evidence material to the issues on the appeal. I shall then deal with the issues.
The facts
Tamarisk, Hillesdon Road, Torquay was until 27 August 1985 part of a large plot owned by Gordon Hoyle and his wife Edwina (‘the Hoyles’). On that day, the Hoyles transferred part of the plot to Mr and Mrs Shambrook, including the detached house known as Tamarisk, and then built a house called Marina View on their retained land, which they occupied. Both Tamarisk and Marina View enjoyed views over Torquay Marina.
Clause 2 of, and the third schedule to, the transfer of 27 August 1985 imposed 12 restrictive covenants on Tamarisk for the benefit of Marina View, including these two:
‘1. Not to use any building for any purpose other than as or incidental to a single private dwelling. …
5. Not to make any alteration or addition to the exterior or external appearance of the Property [Tamarisk] or the buildings thereon nor to erect any walls, fences or buildings (whether temporary or otherwise) without first obtaining the written consent of the Transferor [the Hoyles], the Transferee being responsible for the Transferor’s legal and surveyors’ costs in connection with all matters arising out of any application for consent whether or not such consent is granted.’
The latter covenant (‘the alterations covenant’) is of major significance in the events that happened. The former covenant (‘the user