Call on 0844 2722322

Direct Access and Referral Barrister.
at St Pauls Chambers, Leeds & Gough Square Chambers, London

Exceptional result for Jeremy Barnett in largest ARP case at SDT

Exceptional result for Jeremy Barnett in largest ARP case at SDT

The SDT recently heard a case involving the largest ARP and run off cover in which there had been a default on record. No payments had been made towards the total due of approximately £2m following the Adminstration of Sheffield firm, AMS Law.

The case of Williams, Williams, Carter and Kennedy was heard before the SDT on 2nd July 2011. In a number of earlier cases involving failure to pay much smaller sums of ARP and run off cover, severe sanctions had been imposed in the majority of cases. See blog article dated 15th June  for a review of the majority of decisions. The decision follows recent guidance that was issued by the SRA indicating (after the event) that any failure to pay an ARP premium would be viewed as very serious misconduct.

The case has been recently reported in the Law Society Gazette dated Thursday 27th September. 

Jeremy represented all four solicitors, instructed by Ian Coupland of BCP International Law Firm, 107 -  111 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AB who were described by the tribunal as honest and decent solicitors who had attempted to act with integrity and in the best interests of their clients.

Although there were a number of aggravating features, the Tribunal accepted a number of excepitional mitigating features, and described the ARP scheme as 'rather a blunt instrument as the assessment was based on turnoever rather than a calculation of the potential value of the liablity to the scheme. Here, steps had been taken to reduce the liability of the scheme by prior notification of a number of pre exisitng PI claims.

The mitigating features included;

  • The Respondents were four unfortunate and innocent parites in the administration of a substantial law firm, 
  • They had acted with integrity in assisting the Bank in the administration for no personal gain.
  • They had been placed in an unfortunate position by the action of former partners who had avoided personal liability
  • The firm had been effectively managed by the Bank and its on site representatives who had indicated that expenses would be met

An interesting point that was accepted by the tribunal was that the Respondents did not themselves sign the application form for the ARP that contained the warnings about the consequences of non payment.

Click here to download the full judgment. 

For any advice and assistance for issues like these please do call Jeremy on 0844 2722322 or submit a comment below. Jeremy will come back to you at the earliest convenience.

Comment on this article

security code

Please enter the code seen in the image

Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. Design & Development by ATB Creative