The High Court has recently dismissed a professional negligence lawsuit against a well-known City law firm due to the claimant’s procedural lapses.
The case involved Lynda Joseph, who sought to pursue legal action against McFaddens over alleged negligence relating to advice provided in 2017 concerning a facility agreement backed by a second charge on her property. Initially, Joseph brought a claim against the firm in 2019, alleging ‘mis-selling of a financial product and seeking punitive damages for eviction,’ but this was nullified because it lacked legal grounding.
In the present claim, the claim form was issued on 28 June 2023 and served on 18 October of the same year. However, the particulars of the claim were not received by McFaddens until 1 November, having been posted on 30 October. Joseph contended that the claim form’s service period, with the addition of two business days for deemed service, extended to 31 October, thereby making her submission timely.
Deputy Master Raeburn rejected this argument, clarifying that the concept of deemed service was applicable for different procedural elements and not relevant in this instance. He asserted that even with this reasoning, the particulars were served late, as they would be deemed served post the 31 October deadline.
Joseph represented herself, albeit with the assistance of a direct access barrister, and sought relief from sanctions by citing personal hardships and work commitments in late October as reasons for the delay. She conceded to a misjudgment in assuming the service days were to be counted exclusively as working days, acknowledging a lapse in vigilance regarding service timelines.
The court refused to grant relief from sanctions, with Deputy Master Raeburn indicating that Joseph was well aware of the deadlines and could have applied for an extension. He highlighted that the core issues in both her initial and current claims stemmed from similar circumstances, and questioned the prolonged period taken to articulate the existing claim.
Furthermore, Raeburn emphasised the extensive allocation of court resources to the ongoing disputes between the parties, underscoring a strong need for finality in litigation.
Deputy Master Raeburn’s decision to dismiss the claim underscores the imperative of adherence to procedural rules within litigation processes, reinforcing the judicial system’s commitment to timely and efficient legal proceedings.
