On October 20 2015, His Honour Deemster Doyle, First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls, together with His Honour Judge of Appeal Tattersall QC, sitting in the Staff of Government Division, delivered their judgment in Richard Mark Holmes v Jeremy Paul Bradley Carter T/A Carters. The issue before the court was whether to grant leave to the Privy Council. This case deals with three main issues; (1) the duty of care of an advocate to a third party, (2) amendments to Particulars of Claim and (3) the test when seeking leave to appeal to the Privy Council.
Mr Holmes was a director, chairman and CEO of IncaGold Plc (“the Company”). In November 2005, Mr Tilleard (a business associate) agreed to purchase 5per cent of Mr Holmes’ shares. Mr Holmes instructed Cains on his behalf and Mr Tilleard instructed Carters and the share sale and purchase was agreed and signed by Mr Holmes (on the understanding Mr Tilleard would also sign in due course). However, Mr Tilleard did not sign. Following Mr Tilleard becoming a shareholder and being appointed to the board, a dispute arose between the two.
Despite being appointed the company’s approved advocate in April 2006, Carters also still acted for Mr Tilleard personally. Later that year, Carters resigned as company advocate and on behalf of Mr Tilleard issued proceedings against Mr Holmes relating to the dispute. A settlement was agreed, however Mr Holmes then commenced proceedings against Carters alleging that they had acted negligently. Mr Holmes claimed damages of £2,128,133.81. In their defence, Carters submitted that they owed no duty of care to Mr Holmes and therefore could not be negligent.
Read the full article here: Does an advocate owe a duty of care to a third party?