bill withers plc

Not a lovely day.


Withers may have to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation after its real estate team failed to detect a pair of high voltage cables running through a planned luxury development, and then botched advice on whether they could be moved.

The firm was instructed by Spire Property Development LLP and Hortensia Property Development LLP ("Spire") on the £42 million purchase of two properties on Fulham Road, which Prime intended to develop into three houses and a block of luxury flats.

Two years after the deal completed in 2012, Withers received a stomach-dropping call when Spire got in touch to complain that three high voltage cables belonging to UK Power Networks had been discovered running through the land, upending its development plans.  

A Withers associate confidently replied that the firm "clearly flagged up in advance of exchange the existence of two sub-stations and ancillary cables in the vicinity of the property", which Judge Pelling QC said was accurate but "immaterial", because those items had nothing to do with the high voltage cables. 

When the client asked if it could compel UKPN to either move the cables or pay compensation, the associate "failed to give any advice" on potential remedies, and Spire ended up reducing the size of two of the flats and building two mansions instead of three in order to avoid the subterranean hazards. Then it sued Withers, for not carrying out the search in the first place, and then for giving duff advice when the cables were brought to its attention.

The partner in charge of the matter, Emma Copestake, told the court that she never asked Spire if they should carry out a search for electricity cables because the developers were "sophisticated, experienced property professionals" and it would have been "disrespectful".

The judge said the position adopted by Copestake, who left Withers in 2020, was "untenable", and that the firm had breached its duty to either carry out the search "or at least to inform the claimants that one would not be carried out" unless requested.

In a nightmare scenario, the associate, now a special counsel at Withers, was cross-examined about her years-old advice, and admitted, "I have a vague recollection of looking on the PLC note".

"She did not at any stage read the Act that she was purporting to give advice about", thundered the judge, ruling that using sources that "were not even recognised textbooks but commercially available practice notes" was "plainly negligent" and resulted in advice which "actually misled" the client.

"Whilst it might have been appropriate to start her legal research by consulting the PLC website, it was not appropriate to stop there", he said.

Judge Pelling QC also rejected Withers' valiant argument that because the firm never charged for the associate's flawed cable advice, it was not liable for it. 

Significant parts of Spire's claims were rejected, but Withers was found liable for the £1.4 million drop in the value of the properties resulting from changes made to the layout to dodge the cables, which included the loss of such luxury essentials as a dressing room and an en suite bath. It represents the first time an oligarch will have to wash standing up because of a PLC note.

Withers told RollOnFriday, "We regret that these matters reached trial despite our efforts to resolve them to everyone's satisfaction, but we are nevertheless pleased that the great majority of the claims failed. Given that there is a possibility of appeals it would not be appropriate for us to make any further comment at this stage".

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Sinsofthepast 08 October 21 08:54

This is dumbness of the highest order by the firm, the firm's insurers and the firm's appointed solicitors.

It should have been settled out of court with an NDA.

Dumb dumb dumb.

Anonymous 08 October 21 08:58

"It represents the first time an oligarch will have to wash standing up because of a PLC note."

Genuine lol.

Poopot 08 October 21 09:38

"Whilst it might have been appropriate to start her legal research by consulting the PLC website, it was not appropriate to stop there", he said.

...sh*t, really?

Gobblepig 08 October 21 09:40

Withers is having a good day. Kudos to them for blatantly using the same press release for both cock-ups. 

Gooner Lawyer 08 October 21 10:13

I'm still creasing at the Bill Withers cover and 'it was not a lovely day' underneath. Superb! Take a bow Jamie Hamilton!

Anon 08 October 21 10:20

Many lawyers will be panicked now given the reliance on PLC.  It’s a lazy way to pass on advice without thinking about the law and drilling down to what the cases say.  No excuse when you’re being paid serious money. 

Dearie 08 October 21 11:21

Typical rubbish insurance lawyers refusing to settle. It’s a waste of court time and their clients money and all in the hope that a judge might give them an out. Usually counteracted by the P36 claimant offer. 

Dearie 08 October 21 11:41

Oh yes terrible insurance lawyers and insurers actually defending a claim and negotiating rather than just paying out.  

Eggery 08 October 21 13:15

Don’t diss Practical Law. We all use it and apply it and generally it’s spot on. It is also far more easily searched and read than the recognised texts, which are there as a second step if required.

I don’t work for Practical Law btw…

PLC Pro 08 October 21 14:00

Typical bookworm, law nerd comment from the judge in his criticism of PLC reliance (which is a modern day textbook by any stretch), and a fine example of a lawyer without a practical bone in his body. Most lawyers take PLC as gospel and their firms pay good money for the subscription. If you have to start checking that everything in it is accurate then the client will end up paying an even more extortionate fee and advice will take twice as long.

I bet this judge has given plenty of duff advice as a barrister in his time and gotten away with it. There but the grace of God etc. 

 

 

 

 

Typical 

Anonymous Anonymous 08 October 21 16:39

Law firms charge large amounts of money for legal advice. They are the legal experts. If they get it wrong they should pay compensation or not exist.

Dayglo Dave 08 October 21 17:40

Anonymous Anonymous - Your comment displays a mind that is a subtle as a brick.  If you knew anything about the subject on which you are commenting you would know that what is probably a majority  of conveyancing lawyers in 2012 were not doing searches for cables at that time.  How do you know the judge was right on the law?  This case could quite easily be appealed.  Has it not occurred to you that if this was an open-and-shut case of negligence, the insurers would not have gone to trial.

Obi-Dan 08 October 21 17:48

"Maybe" I need to read the judgement - but the crux of the matter is surely:- 

"The [Withers] partner in charge of the matter, [Redacted], told the court that she never asked [Withers Client] if they should carry out a search for electricity cables because the developers were "sophisticated, experienced property professionals" and it would have been "disrespectful".

The judge said the position adopted by [the Withers Partner], who left Withers in 2020, was "untenable", and that the firm had breached its duty to either carry out the search "or at least to inform the claimants that one would not be carried out" unless requested.

I fail to understand the criticism of PLC - unless their Practice Note was deficient in this regard.

Not my fault Guv 10 October 21 08:24

Judge: "Hey lawyer - guess what? You are accountable for the advice you give your  client". 

Anon 12 October 21 13:49

Obi-Dan - yes, the judgment makes it clear.  There's two different claims - one that they didn't do the searches and should have done, and one that (when they became aware of the cables) they were given duff advice on solutions, based on the PLC note. 

A bit like the PLC note, RoF's article only makes sense if you've read the underlying law....

Related News