BL-2025-000402 - [2025] EWHC 2974 (Ch)

The Claimant (“Powis”) has brought a professional negligence claim (“the Present Claim”) against its former solicitors (the First Defendant, “W&S”) and leading counsel (the Second Defendant, “Mr Pilling”). Mr Pilling applies for summary judgment in relation to the claim against him. W&S has served its Defence and has made no application for summary judgment.

Powis’ claim against Mr Pilling is for professional negligence in relation to Mr Pilling’s work (in respect of which he was instructed by W&S) concerning a claim (“the Underlying Claim”) which was pursued by Powis against a firm of solicitors, Wallace LLP (“Wallace”), and a firm of property agents, Cradick Retail (“Cradick”), and in particular Mr Pilling’s work in relation to the Particulars of Claim in that claim, which he drafted (“the Underlying PoC”). The Underlying Claim concerned alleged failings by Wallace and Cradick in their work in relation to the sale by Powis, out of a substantial freehold estate it owned at Woolwich, of properties known as 138-152 Powis Street (“138-152”) and 132-136 Powis Street (“132-136”). Conduct of the Underlying Claim passed from W&S and Mr Pilling to other solicitors and counsel, and in due course it was settled on terms favourable to Powis. In these proceedings, Powis contends that it could have done even better in the Underlying Claim. It says that W&S and Mr Pilling failed to identify an alternative – better – way of putting the claim against Cradick. Powis maintains that if only the claim against Cradick had been put in that alternative way, Cradick would have paid more to settle.