The Gazette 1990

j A nua R y / february

1990

GAZETTE

The facts of the case were that in 1985 the purchaser entered into a conditional sale agreement with the company for a Volkswagen Kamper. The cash price was £7,600 and the total price including interest was £10,946 payable over five years by 60 monthly instal- ments of £157.00. The Court stated that the pur- chaser paid 23 instalments and then wanted money to go on holiday and decided to sell the car. In May 1987 the plaintiff enquired of the company how much he owed. He was told on the tele- phone that the amount outstanding was £1,044 and had that confirmed in writing. On June 4, 1987 the purchaser sold the car for £5,100 and paid the settlement fee then £1,003 to the company. On June 8, the company realised its mistake: the true amount outstanding was £5,814. The judge in the lower court had made two important findings: first, that the purchaser had genuinely believed that only £1,044 was out- standing and second, that he would not have sold the car had he known the true settlement figure. Thus, by selling the car when he would not otherwise have done, the purchaser had acted to his detriment. The Court of Appeal stated it was of the essence of equitable estoppel that a plaintiff was pre- vented from insisting upon his strict legal rights. In every case it was a question whether it would be in- equitable to allow a plaintiff to enforce his legal rights inconsist- ently with his representation. The Court of Appeal considered that the question might have been answered either way - but there was no reason to disagree with the way it was answered by the trial judge. P U P I L I N J U R E D D U R I NG R U G B Y MA T C H: WAS T H E S C H O O L L I A B L E ? The issues raised in Van Oppen -v- Clerk to the Bedford Charity Trustees 11989] 1 All ER 273 are of interest to parents, school author- ities and their legal advisers. The plaintiff was seriously in- jured in 1980 when he tackled another pupil in a game of rugby at school. In the previous year, the school had received a report from the school medical officers' associ-

LAWBR I EF Edited by Éamonn G. Hall, Solicitor. &

counsel appears to me to be so strong that I would find it diffi- cult . . . . to justify a different rule for solicitors. I have already shown that solicitors have the same absolute privilege as counsel when conducting a case. So my present view is that the public interest does require that a solicitor should not be liable to be sued for negligence in carrying out work in litigation which would have been carried out by counsel if counsel had been engaged in the case". In Lombard North Central pic -v- Stobart, The Times, March 2, 1990 the Court of Appeal held that a finance company which under- stated to the purchaser of a motor car under a conditional sale agree- ment the amount of the settlement figure, and accepted a payment of that amount, could not thereafter recover the full amount due. The unequivocal representation by the finance company, believed and acted on by the purchaser, estopped it from enforcing its legal rights under the contract. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the company, Lombard North Central pic, from the judgment of Judge Galpin in June 1989 in Southampton County Court in favour of the purchaser, Vincent Stobart. F I N A N C E C OM P A NY B O U ND BY I T S UND E R V A L U A T I ON OF D E B T D UE

S O L I C I T O R ' S I MMU N I TY W H E N A C T I NG A S A N A D V O C A TE A recent decision of the UK Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Somas- undaram -v- M. Julius Melchior & Co. (a firm) [1989] I All ER 129 should be of interest to solicitors in this jurisdiction. The plaintiff had brought an action for damages for negligence against his solicitors, alleging, inter alia, that he had been over-persuaded by them to change his story in a criminal trial by sug- gestions that a guilty plea would improve his position in matrimonial proceedings between him and his wife. The Court of Appeal held, per curiam, that immunity from suit in respect of advice given to a client as to his plea in criminal pro- ceedings is so intimately connected with the conduct of the cause in court that it is covered by the immunity applying to the conduct of litigation and such immunity extends not only to barristers but also to solicitors when acting as advocates. But it does not apply to solicitors when a barrister has also been engaged to advise, although in practice a solicitor's advice on plea which results in a decision of the court or which is subsequently confirmed by counsel could not give rise to liability on the part of the solicitor. The Court referred, inter alia, to the speech of Lord Reid in Rondel -v- Worsley [1967] 3 All ER 933 at 1001, [1969] 1 AC 191 at 232 when he said: "But the case for immunity of

57