Diligent readers of the blog will remember me commenting on Padden v. Bevan Ashford Solicitors. You can quickly refresh your memory on the case revolving around the free half hour here:
You’ll never guess what’s back in the courts –
That is correct, the re-trial of Padden v Bevan Ashford has taken place, and back to the Court of Appeal again!
My gripe with the first Court of Appeal decision was that I considered that it just didn’t have regard to the realities of giving a half hour free advice. The course the Appeal Court said should have been followed just doesn’t reflect the realities of day to day life in the High Street. Reading between the lines of the HHJ Vosper’s decision, which was under appeal, I have a feeling he had at least some sympathy with that view. He couldn’t go behind the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, that the newly qualified solicitor (now known to be a Ms. Shinner) had been deficient in her first meeting with Mrs. Padden, but at paragraph 16 we get a different flavour of that first meeting.
The judge notes that the claimant was “evidently distressed and in a rush to be back home as soon as possible”. So quite how much attention Mrs. Padden was giving to what Ms. Shinner had to tell her is doubtful. Despite this, Ms Shinner took pity and decided to help. A human lawyer! One who wanted to help a person in distress – not quite conforming to popular stereotype, one might say, but more common than is generally realised.
“Ms Shinner advised the claimant that she was not doing the right thing, and advised her not to sign any documents. Ms Shinner must have based that advice on her appreciation that paying off Mrs Partridge might not stop a criminal prosecution.” So the judge, upon looking with care at what happened at that first meeting realises that Ms. Shinner’s advice was focussed more closely on the key issue than perhaps the Court of Appeal first time round had realised. If only Mrs. Padden had chosen to follow that advice! Both she and her solicitors would have been so much better off.
The judge also said, “I find that Ms Shinner told the claimant that she was taking a huge or a big risk, and the risk to which Ms Shinner was referring was the risk that Mr Padden would face criminal charges despite the claimant's giving away her interest in the assets.” I guess this is as close to saying that she wasn’t so very negligent as a judge could reasonably get, given the earlier decision, and I commend this analysis.
Blog Disclaimer: Nothing in www.austinkempfamilylaw.blogspot.com blog should be construed as legal advice. If you require legal advice upon any family law related matter then you should instruct a solicitor. Any links to other blogs or web sites are provided for convenience only and Austin Kemp Solicitors cannot accept any responsibility for the contents of such linked blogs/sites.