A recent High Court judgment finds solicitors are not required to explain their actions to opposites.
- The dispute involved a case of alleged breach of directors’ duties and specific service protocols.
- Reed Smith, representing claimants, did not need to clarify timing compliance to Spencer West.
- The court determined no duty existed for assisting opposing counsel in procedural understanding.
- Judge ruled that setting aside default judgment serves justice and court objectives.
In a significant ruling, the High Court found that solicitors representing claimants in a legal dispute over service protocols were under no obligation to justify their actions to the opposing party. The dispute revolved around a claim for breach of directors’ duties, with Reed Smith acting for the claimants and Spencer West for the defendants. Reed Smith had requested agreement on email service of particulars, which Spencer West declined, citing a perceived lapse in time.
Reed Smith subsequently served the particulars by conventional means and disputed Spencer West’s assertion of being out of time. Despite Spencer West’s repeated demands for an explanation, Reed Smith maintained there was no such requirement to elucidate their reasoning. His Honour Judge Cadwallader, evaluating the matter, confirmed that Reed Smith was indeed correct in its timing and was not obligated to assist Spencer West, who had misinterpreted the relevant legal timelines.
The claimants proceeded successfully with their application for default judgment, a move that Spencer West contested, arguing unreasonable lack of explanation from Reed Smith. However, Judge Cadwallader rejected such arguments, affirming that there was no inherent duty for parties to aid opposing counsel in understanding procedural stipulations or to clarify their positions beyond court requirements.
Spencer West’s misunderstanding stemmed from failing to appreciate differing timelines applicable within the London Circuit Commercial Court. The available resources, inclusive of the Civil Procedure Rules and various notes, sufficed to inform such timelines adequately. The judge emphasised the absence of misleading conduct from Reed Smith, noting that their disagreement was sufficiently communicated without necessitating further elaboration.
In conclusion, while the High Court acknowledged the legitimacy of Spencer West’s request, it highlighted the reasonable stance Reed Smith maintained in not responding. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that the role of solicitors in aiding each other does not extend beyond submitting necessary information to the court. Ultimately, setting aside the default judgment was deemed necessary solely to adhere to the interests of justice and the overarching court objectives.
The case underscores the autonomy of solicitors in managing procedural interactions without unwarranted obligations towards opposing counsel.
