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

At paragraph 47 of the Particulars of Claim in the Present Claim, Powis alleges that, by not pleading the Relevant Claims, Mr Pilling was negligent:

“47.

In particular Mr Pilling KC should have (but failed to) include each of the Relevant Claims in the Particulars of Claim, alternatively one or more of them; and should have (but failed to) advise that each of the Relevant Claims, alternatively one or more of them, be included in the Particulars of Claim. This is in the light of the following circumstances:

(1)

It was apparent from the information provided to Mr Pilling KC, and Mr Pilling KC should have (but it is inferred failed to) appreciate, that each of the Relevant Claims was a claim of real merit and significant value, and, yet further, that the Relevant Claims were the best claims (in the light of their merits and value) available to Powis against Cradick (or which would have been available against Cradick Retail LLP, had Cradick Retail LLP acted);

(2)

The obvious difficulties which Mr Pilling KC should have (alternatively did) anticipate would be faced in obtaining permission to amend the Particulars of Claim after their service so as to include the Relevant Claims, or any of them, in the light of the expiry prior to 19 April 2018 of the limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1980 applicable to the Relevant Claims”

It will be noted that the complaint is that it was apparent from “the information provided to” Mr Pilling that the Relevant Claims later pleaded by Mr Halpern were the best way of putting the case against Cradick. The “information provided to” Mr Pilling is not particularised. Mr Grant says all the information relied upon is pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, but which parts of the Particulars of Claim are not identified. The relevant information is the information given to Mr Pilling as part of his instructions to settle the Particulars of Claim which were served on 19 April 2018, and I have summarised that above at paragraphs 3 to 27.