A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 20 junio 2016
In the recent decision of Caliendo and Another v Mishcon de Reya (a Firm), Mishcon de Reya was subject to a professional negligence action by shareholders of QPR Football Club.
Mishcon acted for QPR Holdings Ltd ("QPRH") in a 2007 transaction for the sale of the company's shares. The claimant shareholders alleged that there was an implied retainer between Mishcon and them, or alternatively that Mishcon had assumed a duty of care to them in the share sale.
Mishcon had not entered into a formal written retainer when acting for QPRH in the transaction. The claimants, collectively owning a majority of shares in QPRH, had not appointed legal representation. They had, however, been advised by a firm of tax and trust specialists, who liaised with Mishcon on their behalf throughout the transaction.
Following the sale, the claimants alleged that Mishcon had been retained to act on their behalf in their personal capacity as legal and beneficial owners of QPRH. They alleged that Mishcon had breached its duty to them by failing to include certain deal terms in the sale documentation.
The Court was asked to consider:
The Court relied on Dean v Allin & Watts  in which it was held that all circumstances must be taken into account when seeking to imply a professional retainer agreement, including whether the party was liable for fees, whether there was a direct instruction and whether any contractual relationships had existed between the parties in the past.
Having considered "all the circumstances" the Court concluded that neither an express nor implied retainer existed – there was no evidence of a general and longstanding relationship between the parties and it was not essential for the claimants to have been represented by solicitors, particularly as they had received other professional advice.
The court emphasised that it should be slow to imply a duty of care where there is a conflict of interest between the actual client and the party asserting the duty of care, but that the law did not preclude it. The court was persuaded that Mishcon did assume a duty of care, albeit a limited one, in part due to Mishcon referring to the claimants as clients in an email and executing several transactional documents pursuant to powers of attorney granted by the claimants. The limited duty required that there was an exercise of reasonable skill and care in the negotiation and execution of the transaction documentation, but only insofar as: (i) the claimants' interests were aligned with those of QPRH, and (ii) the claimants were not advised by their other professional advisors.
Hence, while a duty did exist, the Court found that Mishcon had not breached the duty and the claim was dismissed.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6910
+44 (0)20 7894 6900
Thomas Jordan, Jonathan Mitchell
Sally Roff, Chris Baranowski
Andrea Ward, David Williams
David Williams, David Johnson
Sally Roff, Fiona Gill
Charlotte Le Maire, Ash Sharma
Marcus Campbell, Graham Briggs, Sarah Crowther
Richard Highley, Julian Bubb Humfryes
Francesca Muscutt, Annabel Walker
Suzanne Wharton, Naomi Park