Hall (Arthur J.S.) & Co. v. Simons, (2000) 258 N.R. 1 (HL)

• Case Date: July 20, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 258 N.R. 1 (HL)

Hall & Co. v. Simons (2000), 258 N.R. 1 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Arthur J.S. Hall & Co. (appellants) v. Simons (A.P.) (respondent)

Barratt (respondent) v. Ansell and others Trading as Woolf Seddon (A Firm) (appellants)

Harris (respondent) v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill (appellants)

(Conjoined appeals)

Indexed As: Hall (Arthur J.S.) & Co. v. Simons

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Steyn, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett

July 20, 2000.

Summary:

In a building case and in two cases in­volving family proceedings, clients raised claims in negligence against firms of solici­tors. In response the solicitors relied on the immunity of advocates from suits in negli­gence. In all three cases judges at first instance ruled that the claims against the solicitors were unsustainable. The clients ap­pealed.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision re­ported [1999] 3 W.L.R. 873, ruled that the claims were wrongly struck out. The solici­tors appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeals. The court unanimously held that the rule respecting immunity of advocates should be abolished in situations where the negligence alleged against the advocate related to the advocate's conduct of a civil action. The court was divided on whether such immunity should continue where the negligence alleged related to the conduct of a criminal prosecu­tion. Lord Steyn, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Millett favoured discontinuing advocate immunity in the criminal justice system, while Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, opined that immunity should be retained in the criminal context.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2905

Negligence - Defences - Immunity of liti­gation lawyers - In a building case and in two family law cases, clients raised claims in negligence against firms of so­licitors - In each case the judges at first instance ruled that the claims against the solicitors were unsustainable based on the immunity of advocates - The House of Lords held that the claims could proceed - The court unanimously held that the rule respecting immunity of advocates should be abolished in situations where the negli­gence alleged against the advocate related to the ad­vocate's conduct of a civil action - The court was divided on whether such im­munity should continue where the negli­gence alleged related to the conduct of a criminal prosecution, with four of the seven judges, favouring discontinuing ad­vocate immunity in the criminal justice system.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2905

Negligence - Defences - Immunity of liti­gation lawyers - The House of Lords, per Lord Steyn, stated that "in Canada an ad­vocate had no immunity from an action in negligence before Rondel v. Worsley was decided [House of Lords, 1969]. In 1979 the question was re-examined in great de­tail as a result of ... Rondel v. Worsley: see Demarco v. Ungaro ... (Ont. H.C.). In Canada trial lawyers owe a duty to the court. After a detailed and careful review the court found there was no evi­dence that the work of Canadian courts was hampered in any way by counsel's fear of civil li­ability. The Demarco case has been con­sistently followed by Ca­nadian courts ... I regard the Canadian empirically tested ex­perience as the most relevant. It tends to demonstrate that the fears that the possi­bility of actions in negligence against bar­risters would tend to undermine the public interest are unneces­sarily pessimis­tic." - See paragraph 11.

Cases Noticed:

Rondel v. Worsley, [1969] 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 1, 19, 25, 106, 162, 187].

Saif Ali v. Mitchell (Sydney) & Co. (A firm), [1980] A.C. 198 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 1, 32, 111, 162, 187].

Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, [1982] A.C. 529 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 1, 21, 82, 114, 162, 187].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 4, 25, 159].

Ridehalgh v. Horsefield, [1994] Ch. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 53, 216].

Elguzouli-Daf v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [1995] Q.B. 335 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 152, 238].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department); Ex parte Simms, [1999] 3 W.L.R. 328; 246 N.R. 15 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

Smith v. Linskills, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 763, refd to. [paras. 9, 73].

Giannarelli v. Wraith (1988), 165 C.L.R. 543 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 119, 165].

Boland v. Yates Property Corp. Pty. Ltd. (1999), 74 A.L.J.R. 209 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 111, 168].

Rees v. Sinclair, [1974] 1 N.Z.L.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 108, 167, 189].

Ferri v. Ackermann (1979), 444 U.S. 193, refd to. [paras. 11, 143].

Demarco v. Ungaro (1979), 95 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 58, 145, 166].

Karpenko v. Paroian, Courey, Cohen & Houston (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 776 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pelky v. Hudson Bay Insurance Co. (1981), 35 O.R.(2d) 97 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Garrant v. Moskal, [1985] 2 W.W.R. 80; 40 Sask.R. 160 (Q.B.), affd. [1985] 6 W.W.R. 31; 40 Sask.R. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Hodge (M.) & Sons Ltd. v. Monoghan et al. (1985), 51 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 173; 150 A.P.R. 173 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd., [1995] 2 A.C. 145, refd to. [para. 35].

Munster v. Lamb (1883), 11 Q.B.D. 588, refd to. [paras. 41, 175, 198].

Swain v. Hillman, The Times, 4 November 1999, Transcript No. 1732 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Marrinan v. Vibart, [1963] 1 Q.B. 528, refd to. [para. 64].

Mann v. O'Neill (1997), 71 A.L.J.R. 903 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

Taylor et al. v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office et al., [1999] 2 A.C. 177; 233 N.R. 172 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 67, 155].

Stanton v. Callaghan, [2000] 1 Q.B. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 70, 210].

Kitchen v. Royal Air Force Association, [1958] 1 W.L.R. 563, refd to. [para. 74].

Reichel v. Magrath (1889), 14 App. Cas. 665, refd to. [para. 80].

Ashmore v. British Coal Corp., [1990] 2 Q.B. 338, refd to. [paras. 81, 221].

Hollington v. Hewthorn (F.) & Co., [1943] K.B. 587 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 84, 254].

Walpole v. Partridge & Wilson, [1994] Q.B. 106, refd to. [para. 87].

Atwell v. Perry (Michael) & Co., [1998] 4 All E.R. 65, refd to. [para. 90].

Southwark London Borough Council v. Mills, [1999] 3 W.L.R. 939, refd to. [para. 93].

Waring (No. 2), Re, [1948] Ch. 221, refd to. [para. 97].

Arnold v. National Westminster Bank plc, [1991] 2 A.C. 93, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Clinton, [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1181, refd to. [paras. 97, 136].

Acton v. Pearce (Graham) & Co., [1997] 3 All E.R. 909, refd to. [paras. 99, 149, 250].

Roy v. Prior, [1971] A.C. 470, refd to. [paras. 109, 198].

Golder v. United Kingdom (1975), 1 E.H.R.R. 524, refd to. [para. 112].

Fayed v. United Kingdom (1994), 18 E.H.R.R. 393, refd to. [paras. 112, 182].

Tinnelly Sons Ltd. v. United Kingdom (1998), 27 E.H.R.R. 249, refd to. [para. 112].

Bateman v. Owen White, [1996] P.N.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 119].

Law Hospital N.H.S. Trust v. Lord Ad­vocate, [1996] S.C. 301, refd to. [para. 125].

Rondel v. Worsley, [1967] 1 Q.B. 443 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

Anderson v. H.M. Advocate, [1996] S.C. 29, refd to. [para. 136].

Crooks v. Lawford Kidd & Co., [1999] G.W.D. 14-651 (Scot.), refd to. [para. 141].

Crooks v. Haddow, [2000] G.W.D. 10-367 (Scot.), refd to. [para. 141].

Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), 424 U.S. 409 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 143, 176].

Spring v. Constantino (1975), 362 A.2d 871 (Conn.), refd to. [para. 143].

Reese v. Danforth (1979), 406 A.2d 735 (Pa.), refd to. [para. 143].

Morgano v. Smith (1994), 879 P.2d 735 (Nev.), refd to. [para. 143].

Browne v. Robb (1990), 583 A.2d 949 (Del.), refd to. [para. 143].

Bradshaw v. Joseph (1995), 666 A.2d 1175 (Vt.), refd to. [para. 143].

Coyazo v. State of New Mexico (1995), 897 P.2d 234 (N.M.), refd to. [para. 144].

Kelley v. Corston, [1998] Q.B. 686, refd to. [para. 154].

Martin v. Watson, [1996] 1 A.C. 74; 185 N.R. 135 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 155].

Batchelor v. Pattison and Mackersy (1876), 3 R. 914, refd to. [para. 157].

Arenson v. Arenson, [1977] A.C. 405, refd to. [para. 163].

Sutcliffe v. Thrackrah, [1974] A.C. 727, refd to. [para. 175].

McC. (A minor), Re, [1985] A.C. 528, refd to. [para. 176].

Pearson v. Reed (1935), 6 Cal.App.2d 277, refd to. [para. 176].

Lithgow v. United Kingdom (1986), 8 E.H.R.R. 329, refd to. [para. 182].

Osman v. United Kingdom, [1999] 1 F.L.R. 193, refd to. [para. 191].

Ashingdane v. United Kingdom (1985), 7 E.H.R.R. 528, refd to. [para. 191].

Ladd v. Marshall, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489, refd to. [para. 227].

Somasundaram v. Melchior (Julius M.) & Co., [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1394, refd to. [para. 250].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts and Legal Services Act (U.K.) 1990, sect. 62 [paras. 14, 55].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cane, Peter, Tort Law and Economic In­terests (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 202 [para. 8]; 233 to 238 [para. 7]; 236, 237 [para. 8].

Graef, R.O., Judicial Activism in Civil Proceedings: A Comparison between English and German Civil Procedural Approaches (1996), generally [para. 11].

Hill, Jonathan, Litigation and Negligence: A Comparative Study (1986), 6 Oxford J.L.S. 183, pp. 184 to 186 [para. 7].

Kennedy, Ian, Treat Me Right: Essays in Medical Law and Ethics (1988), gen­erally [para. 10].

Kentridge, Sydney, Tortious Liability of Statutory Bodies (1999), Foreword, p. ix [para. 7], p. 80 [para. 11].

Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (4th Ed. 2000), p. 56, fn. 35 [para. 36].

Roxburg, Rondel v. Worsley: Immunity of the Bar (1968), 84 L.Q.R. 513, generally [para. 4].

Roxburg, Rondel v. Worsley: The Histori­cal Background (1968), 84 L.Q.R. 178, generally [para. 4].

Stair, Institutions of the Law of Scotland, s. 1.12.10 [para. 160].

United Kingdom, Green Paper on The Work and Organisation of the Legal Profession (1989), Cmnd. 570, para. 62 [para. 117].

United Kingdom, Royal Commission on Legal Services Report (1979), Cmnd. 7648, vol. 1, p. 333, para. 24.7 [para. 116].

United Kingdom, White Paper on Legal Services: A Framework for the Future (1989), Cmnd. 740 [para. 117].

Van Den, Wyngaert and others, Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community (1993), generally [para. 11].

Counsel:

Jonathan Sumption, Q.C., and Jeffrey Bacon, for the appellants;

Andrew Edis, Q.C., and Peter Duckworth, for the respondents;

C. Montgomery, Q.C., and Peter Scott, Q.C., for the intervenor.

Agents:

Weighmans, for the appellant, Hall;

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, for the appellant, Ansell;

Bond Pearce, for the appellant, Scholfield;

Hill Dickinson, for the respondent, Simons;

Cooper Whiteman, for the respondent, Barratt;

Stephens & Scown, for the respondent, Harris;

Biddle & Co., for the intervenor.

These appeals were heard on March 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2000, before Lord Steyn, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett of the House of Lords. The decision of the House of Lords was given on July 20, 2000, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

Lord Browne-Wilkinson - see para­graphs 18 to 23;

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 24 to 102;

Lord Hope of Craighead, dissenting in part - see paragraphs 103 to 161;

Lord Hutton, dissenting in part - see paragraphs 162 to 185;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, dis­senting in part - see paragraphs 186 to 256;

Lord Millett - see paragraphs 257 to 263.