Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 55
Pleadings and con昀氀icts of interest
by Richard Whitehouse, Barrister at 3PB Barristers.
Blower v GH Can昀椀eld LLP
[2025] EWCA Civ 1627
On 15 December 2015 Mr Blower told Can昀椀eld that
he no longer wished to be bound by the settlement
agreement and took particular issue with the
charges that had been agreed to be placed over
various properties as security.
Introduction
This recent Court of Appeal decision primarily deals
with issues around pleading breach and causation
in the context of a professional negligence claim.
The claim arises from settlement advice that was
provided by solicitors, allegedly in a situation where
there were con昀氀icts of interest.
The sum of £1.5 million was not paid to the trustee
in bankruptcy on 30 September 2016. As a result,
Mrs Blower stated that she was forced to sell a villa in
Spain in order to raise money to go towards paying
the £1.5 million.
The Court found that there was not a con昀氀ict of
interest, partly because this had been pleaded
narrowly, and there was no coherent case on
causation.
Mrs Blower later alleged that Can昀椀eld had acted
negligently in the conduct of the mediation and
in advising settlement, and that this caused loss to
her and her daughter. Mrs Blower alleged that, if
Can昀椀eld had properly advised her, she would not
have agreed to the settlement that was reached.
She also alleged that there was a con昀氀ict of interest
in Can昀椀eld acting for Mr Blower and other family
members, speci昀椀cally because she had claims
against Mr Blower and the bankrupt estate. It was
alleged that Mrs Blower’s claim had a value of about
£5 million.
Background
Mr Blower had been adjudged bankrupt in May 2014,
following which his trustee in bankruptcy initiated
proceedings against him and his family.
The claims brought by the trustee in bankruptcy
included actions relating to an unsanctioned postpetition disposition of the bankrupt’s property and
various transactions at an undervalue. The claims
had a total value in excess of £2 million.
At 昀椀rst instance, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews
KC (sitting as a High Court judge) dismissed Mrs
Blower’s claim on the basis that Can昀椀eld had not
been negligent, and even if negligence had been
established, there was no coherently pleaded case
on causation. The judge was not invited to consider
a claim for damages on a loss of a chance basis.
GH Can昀椀eld LLP (“Can昀椀eld”) acted for Mr Blower
and his family.
In August 2015, a conference was held with Counsel
during which Mr Blower gave instructions that a
global settlement in relation to all of the matters
relating to the Blower family should be agreed.
Mrs Blower was granted permission to appeal on two
principal grounds:
(1) whether Can昀椀eld had acted under a con昀氀ict
of interest in advising di昀昀erent family members
including her bankrupt husband, and
On 9 December 2015 a 12-hour mediation resulted
in a global settlement whereby the family members
agreed to pay the trustee in bankruptcy £1.5 million
by 30 September 2016
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
(2) whether the pleadings su昀케ciently articulated
causation.
53
APRIL 2026
