header-logo header-logo

18 November 2016
Issue: 7723 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Solicitor

Zoya Ltd v Ahmed (t/a Property Mart) [2016] EWHC 2249 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 75 (Nov)

The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant’s application for an order for costs against a firm of solicitors for the alleged breach of a warranty of authority. The defendant had contended that, by issuing proceedings on behalf of the claimant, the solicitors had warranted that they had had authority to act on the claimant’s behalf when, following the determination of preliminary issues, it was in the fact the case that they had had no such authority. The court held that the warranty had been given at the outset of the proceedings, but had no longer been given after a certain period and that the defendant had failed to establish that he had relied on the warranty in the sense that he had been induced by it to act to his prejudice.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll