Hill Dickinson has been found negligent after a client found he could not get compensation after his superyacht broke down an hour after he bought it.
In 2010 James Lawson was instructed by New York businessman Michael Hirtenstein to purchase Candyscape, a 47 metre luxury yacht, from property developer Christian Candy. Thanks to the financial crisis the boat was available at a knockdown price of just 4.5 million euros. Despite a tight deadline, Lawson managed to complete the deal. As the High Court judgment reveals, his delight was premature:
Hirtenstein, after being towed 12 miles back to shore, instructed Lawson to claim against a personal guarantee Candy had given. However, on inspecting the contract, Lawson realised he had made a mistake and the guarantee wasn't actually there. Gulp. After no doubt reading the contract a hundred times white-faced on the toilet, he called Hirtenstein to explain that the proposed claim was fatally flawed. Hirtenstein sued Hill Dicks.
But although Justice Leggatt agreed that Hill Dicks was liable for negligence, which the firm accepted, he largely sided with Lawson, ruling that Hirtenstein had suffered no loss and was only entitled to nominal damages.
In his judgment Leggatt pointed out that Hirtenstein didn't ask for a guarantee or even know about it until Lawson mentioned it after contracts were exchanged. He said that Hirtenstein's claim that he would not have bought the yacht without one was a belief "that has been formed in hindsight and does not represent his attitude at the time".
Leggatt was even sympathetic to the stress Lawson was put under to complete the deal as quickly as possible, noting that Lawson received the call to start working on a Sunday while he was "driving on the M6...with his young children in the car, one of whom was being sick, and the last thing he wanted was to speak to a broker with a new instruction".
In a statement Hill Dickinson said it “regrets that a mistake was made in this matter. The firm highlighted the error to the client as soon as it came to their attention and was satisfied that it had caused the client no loss. This position has subsequently been vindicated in the judgment”.
Tip Off ROF
In 2010 James Lawson was instructed by New York businessman Michael Hirtenstein to purchase Candyscape, a 47 metre luxury yacht, from property developer Christian Candy. Thanks to the financial crisis the boat was available at a knockdown price of just 4.5 million euros. Despite a tight deadline, Lawson managed to complete the deal. As the High Court judgment reveals, his delight was premature:
Hirtenstein, after being towed 12 miles back to shore, instructed Lawson to claim against a personal guarantee Candy had given. However, on inspecting the contract, Lawson realised he had made a mistake and the guarantee wasn't actually there. Gulp. After no doubt reading the contract a hundred times white-faced on the toilet, he called Hirtenstein to explain that the proposed claim was fatally flawed. Hirtenstein sued Hill Dicks.
|
"Candyscape? You'll not go wrong there, sir. One careful owner, only used her once a week to pop to the shops." |
But although Justice Leggatt agreed that Hill Dicks was liable for negligence, which the firm accepted, he largely sided with Lawson, ruling that Hirtenstein had suffered no loss and was only entitled to nominal damages.
In his judgment Leggatt pointed out that Hirtenstein didn't ask for a guarantee or even know about it until Lawson mentioned it after contracts were exchanged. He said that Hirtenstein's claim that he would not have bought the yacht without one was a belief "that has been formed in hindsight and does not represent his attitude at the time".
Leggatt was even sympathetic to the stress Lawson was put under to complete the deal as quickly as possible, noting that Lawson received the call to start working on a Sunday while he was "driving on the M6...with his young children in the car, one of whom was being sick, and the last thing he wanted was to speak to a broker with a new instruction".
In a statement Hill Dickinson said it “regrets that a mistake was made in this matter. The firm highlighted the error to the client as soon as it came to their attention and was satisfied that it had caused the client no loss. This position has subsequently been vindicated in the judgment”.
Comments
66
77