A Lewis Silkin partner was accused of "reconstructing" his memory by a judge over a mistake which resulted in the firm being ordered to pay a former client £2 million in damages.
Tim Wright, a sports marketing guru who made his name advising Sky, Nike and Chelsea Football Club, was sacked a year into his job as chief executive of Indian cricket club Deccan Chargers. However when he tried to claim a severance payment of £10 million under the terms of his contract, Deccan objected. Wright then found himself mired in court proceedings because his contract did not contain a jurisdicton clause specifying where the dispute should be heard. By the time Wright finally obtained a judgment for £10.3 million in the High Court two years later, commercial pressures on Deccan meant it was unable to pay out.
So Wright sued Lewis Silkin, whose joint employment head Michael Burd had drafted his contract, for professional negligence. Wright claimed that if Burd had included the exclusive jurisdiction boilerplate, he would have won his judgment when there was a better chance of collecting from Deccan.
In the High Court the Lewis Silkin partner argued that he had been under "severe time pressures", but claimed he had told Wright about the "pros and cons" of a jurisdiction clause and Wright had decided against it. Wright said no such advice was given, and in his ruling Mr Justice Hamblen accused Burd of "reconstructing" his memory several times since 2009.
The judge said that even if Burd did mention jurisdiction, he did not make its importance "sufficiently clear and explicit", and awarded damages of £2 million. It follows last week's £1.8 million award against Bird & Bird.
In a statement Lewis Silkin said, "We are naturally very disappointed with the judgment. The claim has been vigorously defended and the amount awarded is substantially less than the amount sought by the claimant, who lost on his primary claim relating to security. Mr Burd was found by the Judge to be a truthful witness and we are carefully considering our position in relation to the judgement and in particular the possibility of an appeal".
It also said the claim related to advice "given more than 6 years ago in 2008 concerning a bespoke agreement which was conceived, drafted and signed urgently over a matter of hours". Although as Wright's solicitor, Rosenblatt partner Simon Walton, told RollOnFriday, "I think the Judgment emphasises that is never an excuse for sub-standard drafting". He added, "if, as a solicitor, you are asked to work to a deadline which means compromising on your advice, you simply must rebalance the client’s expectations or, which was not the case here, make attendance notes”. That sound is Burd's fist going through a wall.
Tip Off ROF
Tim Wright, a sports marketing guru who made his name advising Sky, Nike and Chelsea Football Club, was sacked a year into his job as chief executive of Indian cricket club Deccan Chargers. However when he tried to claim a severance payment of £10 million under the terms of his contract, Deccan objected. Wright then found himself mired in court proceedings because his contract did not contain a jurisdicton clause specifying where the dispute should be heard. By the time Wright finally obtained a judgment for £10.3 million in the High Court two years later, commercial pressures on Deccan meant it was unable to pay out.
So Wright sued Lewis Silkin, whose joint employment head Michael Burd had drafted his contract, for professional negligence. Wright claimed that if Burd had included the exclusive jurisdiction boilerplate, he would have won his judgment when there was a better chance of collecting from Deccan.
In the High Court the Lewis Silkin partner argued that he had been under "severe time pressures", but claimed he had told Wright about the "pros and cons" of a jurisdiction clause and Wright had decided against it. Wright said no such advice was given, and in his ruling Mr Justice Hamblen accused Burd of "reconstructing" his memory several times since 2009.
 |
It's a medical condition, dammit |
The judge said that even if Burd did mention jurisdiction, he did not make its importance "sufficiently clear and explicit", and awarded damages of £2 million. It follows last week's £1.8 million award against Bird & Bird.
In a statement Lewis Silkin said, "We are naturally very disappointed with the judgment. The claim has been vigorously defended and the amount awarded is substantially less than the amount sought by the claimant, who lost on his primary claim relating to security. Mr Burd was found by the Judge to be a truthful witness and we are carefully considering our position in relation to the judgement and in particular the possibility of an appeal".
It also said the claim related to advice "given more than 6 years ago in 2008 concerning a bespoke agreement which was conceived, drafted and signed urgently over a matter of hours". Although as Wright's solicitor, Rosenblatt partner Simon Walton, told RollOnFriday, "I think the Judgment emphasises that is never an excuse for sub-standard drafting". He added, "if, as a solicitor, you are asked to work to a deadline which means compromising on your advice, you simply must rebalance the client’s expectations or, which was not the case here, make attendance notes”. That sound is Burd's fist going through a wall.
Comments
83
55
83
98
To suggest had there been a clause he could have sued the employer quickly before the employer went bust is a bit tenuous and remote.