Dowling v Griffin
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
- LORD JUSTICE MCFARLANE
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a dispute between the Dowlings and the architectural firm Alan Phillips Associates Limited (APAL), whose insurance was not notified in a timely manner by its principal, Alan Phillips. The Dowlings then sued their solicitors, Bennett Griffin, for negligence in handling the case, particularly regarding insurance issues. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no negligence on Bennett Griffin's part and ruled that causation of loss could not be established.
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE LEWISON: In 2001 Alan Phillips Associates Limited (APAL), a limited company controlled by Alan Phillips, an architect, agreed to perform architectural and design services for the Dowlings in connection with a development project in Hove. The terms of the contract included the following:
"We confirm that we maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance cover of £250,000.00 for any one occurrence ... arising out of one event and this will be the maximum of our liability arising out of this agreement."
2. Unfortunately the project did not go according to plan and the Dowlings fell out with Mr Phillips.
3. In April 2003 a claim for unpaid fees was brought in the County Court against the Dowlings in the name of Alan Phillips Associates without the "Limited".
4. The Dowlings put in a homemade defence but that was struck out on 15 August 2003 and they were ordered to serve a defence and counter-claim by 26 September. The Dowlings then instructed Bennett Griffin to defend the claim and also to make a counter-claim in respect of losses caused by the alleged negligence of the architect.
5. The case was handled by Ms Lee, who was a legal executive at the time, under the supervision of Mr Laverick.
6. The defence and counter-claim were served on or shortly after 17 October 2003.
7. At a hearing on 9 July 2004 a successful application was made for the name of APAL to be substituted for that of Alan Phillips Associates as the claimant in the fees claim and, therefore, also as the defendant to the counter-claim.
8. At the trial in 2005 the Dowlings succeeded on the fees claim and also on liability and the counter-claim.
9. It was only after this, in early 2006, that Mr Phillips first notified APAL's professional indemnity insurers of the counter-claim. It transpired that in order to maintain his own position as an architect with a claims free record Mr Phillips had, in 2003, taken a deliberate decision not to notify APAL's insurers of the counter-claim.
10. The judge found at paragraph [57] that the reason why Mr Phillips did not inform insurers was that he was a very self-confident man and was so sure of success that he did not consider that there was any real prospect of losing. There was, therefore, no need to inform insurers and risk an increase in insurance premiums.
11. The judge made similar findings in paragraph [93] of his judgment when considering the possibility of an application to join Mr Phillips person