Family Court: Law firm’s conduct close to being an abuse of process
A law firm based in Hertfordshire has been severely criticised by a High Court judge for the “heinous” errors it made and the “simple incompetence” it showed in pursuing a probate dispute.
Mr Justice Cusworth said that whilst a negligence claim “would hold out the possibility of some recompense, it would still not fit quite comfortably into the justice of the case” and allowed the claim to continue despite K&K Solicitors’ failures.
The court heard how the firm failed to follow procedures, submitted the wrong forms to the court, failed to send documents to the defendants, produced work full of “errors and omissions”, wasted time and caused delays.
In a decision from March only published yesterday, Cusworth J described the errors committed on behalf of their client as “heinous”.
The procedural failings in the case “resulted directly from the apparent negligence of those solicitors”.
He stressed: “It is for the claimant’s solicitors to draft, issue and serve her claim appropriately, and where they have subsequently erred, then to take appropriate steps to remedy the position as soon as they become aware of the need to do so. In all of that they have failed.”
The judge put the quality of K&K’s work down to “simple incompetence.”
He added: “Worse, the claimant has already spent some £77,000 in pursuing her case, and she now seeks an order for legal service provision for the payment to her solicitors of a further £81,000 out of the estate to enable her to further pursue the litigation.
“That amount, if paid, would almost totally exhaust the undistributed element of the estate.”
K&K was instructed by Nicola George after her partner Clive Townsend died intestate in December 2023, which meant his £450,000 estate went to his two brothers.
Ms George claimed Mr Townsend wrote a will before he died, leaving her 60% of his estate, plus 10% for her daughter and 30% for various charities. However, no will was ever produced or found.
The court heard that Ms George received more than £200,000 from a life insurance payout and her partner’s ashes.
She first issued proceedings in the Chancery Division but it was struck out over multiple procedural failures, starting with it being issued as a part 7, rather than part 8, claim, as such claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 must be.
She then issued a second claim in the Family Division. More procedural issues – such as not validly serving the claim and not filing and serving evidence in accordance with court directions – led the defendants to seek summary judgment.
That application, and Ms George’s application for permission to issue the proceedings “long out of time”, were before the court.
Cusworth J said the solicitors had “repeatedly let her down” and that their conduct in bringing a second claim did not fall far short of amounting to an abuse of process.
“They have had many opportunities to put the claim onto the right track, but they have on each occasion so far failed to seize them, even when advised by others, including the defendants’ solicitors, of the appropriate course. I am just persuaded that this is simple incompetence.”
But despite the “heinous” errors made and the possibility that Ms George could pursue a negligence claim, the judge decided “by the narrowest of margins” that she could bring her claim, noting that it did seem “meritorious”.
Hinting strongly that K&K would be made liable for any applications for costs or for legal services funding, the judge added: “This case must now be referred urgently to some form of cost-effective mediation or other non-court dispute resolution.”
In a statement, Kiran Phull, K&K’s managing partner, said: “We would feel truly prejudiced if the judgment wording was simply taken on its face without knowledge of the circumstances.
“In fact, our client knows exactly the reasons for us being marked as ‘incompetent’ and understands that these are matters beyond our control. This was why she stayed with us despite what the defendants or the court stated.
“This judgment was a relative success for us, such that the defendants finally recognised our client’s right to claim from the estate of the deceased and made an offer of compromise thereafter.”
Leave a Comment