Mark Warwick KC has succeeded in having the claims against his solicitor client dismissed.
On Friday 4 September 2026 judgment was handed down in Gomes v AMG Financial Management Limited [2026] EWHC 2284 (Comm). That judgment contains a detailed analysis of the principles that apply where a party brings a claim against a solicitor who has undertaken non litigious work involving that party. Applying those principles it was decided that the claim lacked merit and should be summarily dismissed.
DETAIL
In the Gomes case, Mr and Mrs Gomes were Claimants in a case brought against 4 Defendants. Mrs G made loans to the Fourth Defendant (“B”). The loans were unsecured. Mrs Gs financial advisor was the First Defendant (“AMG”), and the managing director of AMG was the Second Defendant (“Grey”). AMG employed the Third Defendant, M, a solicitor, to draft certain loan documentation.
From Mrs Gs point of view the transaction was a disaster. The loans were not repaid. Judgment was obtained against B, but steps to enforce the judgment proved unsuccessful. Mrs G turned her attention to AMG, Grey and M. The claims against AMG and Grey were stayed, but M, who was suffering loss because the claims hung over his head, refused a stay, and took the bold line of applying to have the claims against him dismissed. His boldness proved justified.
At [123] the Judge summarised the case against M as follows:
(1) M was a solicitor
(2) M was involved in drafting documentation for a substantial private loan transaction between Mrs G & B
(3) The completed loan agreement of April 2016 was sent to M by B’s solicitors
(4) M took instructions within the AMG/Grey structure
(5) M was paid £3000 shortly after the relevant loan documentation
At [126] the Judge said “The critical question for present purposes is not whether M provided services in connection with the loan (whether in 2016 or otherwise)… but whether there is a claim with the necessary grounds and prospects of success that any services that he provided were pursuant to a personal assumption of responsibility on his part to the Gs or either of them. Without such a personal assumption of responsibility there is no viable basis for a claim against him”. The Judge answered that question in favour of M.
For future purposes the Judge’s remarks as to alleged assumption of responsibility in [134] are significant. He said “I do not accept the claimant’s argument that the mere undertaking of a task for an end client can point (even arguably) to the assumption of personal responsibility by the doer of the task to the person for whose ultimate benefit it is carried out, if that is unaccompanied by any specific dealing between them which “crosses the line””.
To learn more about Mark’s practice, please click here.
To read the judgement please click here.
